mnealtx 0 #26 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. DING DING DING! Hey Dingy, we spend out the ass in the 40's, 50's, 60's yet the debt didn't go crazy until taxes started getting cut, the lower they were cut, the bigger the debt increases. I don;t expect a cogent answer. "Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster." We know you can't comprehend it, but there it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf you have an arg to make, make it, if your arg is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that is a strawman that AVOIDS HAVVING TO TELL US WHY TAX ALLEGEDLY WORK FOR THE SYSTEM. I don't expect you to address the issue or the data. You have been told, over and over again - we quit trying to talk sense to rhys in the truther threads, why should we keep trying with you when you don't show any more comprehension than he does? You tried to act as tho capital gains tax is that much a part of the total tax revenue chart, then trued to tell us the 8% Clinton agreed to chop as a deal with the devil amounted to anything. You have never shown us a maj fed tax cut that has led to prosperity for the masses. Thanks for yet again proving the point. You're the rhys of economy threads. So no answer? Shocker. You're the Belgian of governmental understanding. And yet both Belgian and I understand that it's the small businesses and the people that make up the economy, not government - guess we're both *still* ahead of you. Of course, everyone here but you already knew that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. We also have no shortage of history of what happens to nations who's debt gets out of control. Or what has happened to every attempt at communism, something a neocom like Lucky will do best to avoid thinking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 September 9, 2010 Quote Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. How did government spending cause the over leveraged casino economy to fail? Government overspending and growth are a problem with regards to no longer having the resources to bail out the gamblers and rebuild the new economy, but it didn't cause the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 September 9, 2010 Quote We also have no shortage of history of what happens to nations who's debt gets out of control. Or what has happened to every attempt at communism... Agreed. And with regard to the former, that's the VERY reason that the Bush tax cuts were given a sunset. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. How did government spending cause the over leveraged casino economy to fail? Government overspending and growth are a problem with regards to no longer having the resources to bail out the gamblers and rebuild the new economy, but it didn't cause the problem. Wow, I was unaware that the casino economy was the ONLY instance of capitalism in existence - thanks for pointing that out for us. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 September 9, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Now it is called "stimulus". You take hundreds of billions and just pass it around and call it brilliant policy. Clearly the great one has no clue how things work in a capitalist society. 50 billion additional on top of what has already failed miserably. Can't wait to see what happens in November. Road building, bridges, and trains. I'm thinking that by November, the construction industry and unions will be providing a lot of political support. And hopefully remebering who got us here. The polls clearly show that they do!!! \ We'll see the polls in Nov, the ones that count. And then again in 2012 as the young vote comes out again due to the Republitards sending some moralist, some dinosaur or some fringe nutjob out there that will rally the kids again. I am book marking this post of yours I is coming back Nov. 3rd"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Capitalism is great. How did government spending cause the over leveraged casino economy to fail? Government overspending and growth are a problem with regards to no longer having the resources to bail out the gamblers and rebuild the new economy, but it didn't cause the problem. Wow, I was unaware that the casino economy was the ONLY instance of capitalism in existence - thanks for pointing that out for us. I didn't say that. I did ask you a question though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #34 September 9, 2010 QuoteSo if the Yahoo article says letting expire tax cuts will cost us 700B, but keeping tax cuts would cost 3T, it all is incomplete. I realize you just cut-n-pasted, so I'm not asking you, but we need to see the parent pub befroe we can understand their methodology. Well Lucky...it is a cut and paste from the article you cited. Wasn't it you that called this brilliant? Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #35 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Capitalism is great. How did government spending cause the over leveraged casino economy to fail? Government overspending and growth are a problem with regards to no longer having the resources to bail out the gamblers and rebuild the new economy, but it didn't cause the problem. Wow, I was unaware that the casino economy was the ONLY instance of capitalism in existence - thanks for pointing that out for us. I didn't say that. I did ask you a question though. You certainly inferred it, when you specified one segment of the economy in response to a statement about the economy as a whole.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 September 9, 2010 Quote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. DING DING DING! Hey Dingy, we spend out the ass in the 40's, 50's, 60's yet the debt didn't go crazy until taxes started getting cut, the lower they were cut, the bigger the debt increases. I don;t expect a cogent answer. "Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster." We know you can't comprehend it, but there it is. I know decades of your M.I.C. has hammered the dogshit out of the debt. Your fascist boy, ramp-ing up the military to defeat a country with a joke of a conventional military really fucked us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf you have an arg to make, make it, if your arg is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that is a strawman that AVOIDS HAVVING TO TELL US WHY TAX ALLEGEDLY WORK FOR THE SYSTEM. I don't expect you to address the issue or the data. You have been told, over and over again - we quit trying to talk sense to rhys in the truther threads, why should we keep trying with you when you don't show any more comprehension than he does? You tried to act as tho capital gains tax is that much a part of the total tax revenue chart, then trued to tell us the 8% Clinton agreed to chop as a deal with the devil amounted to anything. You have never shown us a maj fed tax cut that has led to prosperity for the masses. Thanks for yet again proving the point. You're the rhys of economy threads. So no answer? Shocker. You're the Belgian of governmental understanding. And yet both Belgian and I understand that it's the small businesses and the people that make up the economy, not government - guess we're both *still* ahead of you. Of course, everyone here but you already knew that. Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? And I think it's an immature understanding to think it's just small business and the people, it's - Government - Small business - workers - corporations - Military It's all these and probably other agencies/demographics where each has its part, it's grossly simplistic to narrow it to any 1 or 2 of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. We also have no shortage of history of what happens to nations who's debt gets out of control. Or what has happened to every attempt at communism, something a neocom like Lucky will do best to avoid thinking about. Well, thing is simple people can't look at tax history over the last 100 years and see that in times of what you call Socialism/Communism where taxes were highest, we did the best. Lowest taxes, we did/are doing teh worst. Those who accidentally ignore boldfaced history are ignorant, those who purposely do so are intentionally ignorant or just dishonest. Show us where low taxes (capitalism) has lead to good times. Show us where high taxes (Communsim) have led to bad times. I didn;t think so, just more failed theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #40 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo if the Yahoo article says letting expire tax cuts will cost us 700B, but keeping tax cuts would cost 3T, it all is incomplete. I realize you just cut-n-pasted, so I'm not asking you, but we need to see the parent pub befroe we can understand their methodology. Well Lucky...it is a cut and paste from the article you cited. Wasn't it you that called this brilliant? Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. I didn't call the article brilliant, I called Obama's fiscal plan brillaint. I looked for and cited the agency's site, couldn't find teh article they were talking about. Again: - It's a 10-year forecast, worthless really. In 2000 could we have forecasted GWB would be elected and add 5 T to the debt, 911 would have happened? Hardly, don't hang your hat on a 10-year estimate, esp that we can't even find the article of. - Show me a major fed tax cut that has helepd. - Show me a majopr fed tax incr that has hurt. You gujys just keep ignoring historical data in exchange for tired, proven wrong theory/hypothesis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #41 September 9, 2010 Does Lucky even jump?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad) Wrong, taxes aren't always a partisan thing. Eisenhower kept taxes high and we did well for it. GHWB slightly raised taxes and that started a recovery. Low taxes are bad, higher taxes good; you can't show me data that speaks otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #43 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #44 September 9, 2010 QuoteRiiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Source: US Small Business Administration. QuoteDoes that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #46 September 9, 2010 Quote Quote Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Quote Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Oh, they employ just over half of all private sector employees? So factor in gov employees at all levels and they employ what, 35-40% of all workers? Awesome point Quote Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. So Quote Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Gee, if that's true, what is all this big gov hyp about? BS? BTW, show me your source. Quote Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). So just over half? Not a real sterling arrgument there. Quote Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. OK, even if your data is correct, you still haven't supported your claim that these small businesses are grossly relevant to all other sectors as your inferred. Quote Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Ah, identified. So these small businesses export that much huh? I call bullshit on that and you will be good little Mikeepoo and not post your source. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html I see a lot of major corporations producing those, unless you're hiding behind the operative word, "IDENTIFIED EXPORTERS." Apparently they mean identified in that survey. So post your RW liar site for us all. Quote Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. OK, that's irrelevant if teh patents are for insignificant things, whereas major corps invent/devise larger items that affect the GDP more directly. Quote Source: US Small Business Administration. Great, quit being Mike and post the data site. You'll wiggle out. Quote Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Quote Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it? Freeloaders, come on pouty, I haven't been to the doc forever, you likely suck down more welfare than I ever have. Just keep pretending that all is well cause you have HC, fuck others who don't and get offended by people who feel your position is sociopathic, meaning no conscience for other's pain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit. For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. For anyone who cares, don;t know why, I am a current D lic jumper. Don't jump as much as I need to, but I am current. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #48 September 9, 2010 Quote Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly. Visited The Onion News Network lately? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #49 September 9, 2010 Quote For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #50 September 10, 2010 QuoteFor once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. Well, posting data that doesn't tell the whole story leads to incomplete discussions and often incorrect attributions. Qualitative discussion is necessary to figure out what needs to be considered before you start plugging and chugging to see what correlates. Data is important, no doubt, as without it you're left with conjecture. But attribution without understanding is actually dangerous as opposed to conjecture which is merely useless. Simple generalizations about the economy and how it will react to a single input parameter (at non-trivial values) are invariably wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
airdvr 210 #34 September 9, 2010 QuoteSo if the Yahoo article says letting expire tax cuts will cost us 700B, but keeping tax cuts would cost 3T, it all is incomplete. I realize you just cut-n-pasted, so I'm not asking you, but we need to see the parent pub befroe we can understand their methodology. Well Lucky...it is a cut and paste from the article you cited. Wasn't it you that called this brilliant? Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Capitalism is great. How did government spending cause the over leveraged casino economy to fail? Government overspending and growth are a problem with regards to no longer having the resources to bail out the gamblers and rebuild the new economy, but it didn't cause the problem. Wow, I was unaware that the casino economy was the ONLY instance of capitalism in existence - thanks for pointing that out for us. I didn't say that. I did ask you a question though. You certainly inferred it, when you specified one segment of the economy in response to a statement about the economy as a whole.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 September 9, 2010 Quote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. DING DING DING! Hey Dingy, we spend out the ass in the 40's, 50's, 60's yet the debt didn't go crazy until taxes started getting cut, the lower they were cut, the bigger the debt increases. I don;t expect a cogent answer. "Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster." We know you can't comprehend it, but there it is. I know decades of your M.I.C. has hammered the dogshit out of the debt. Your fascist boy, ramp-ing up the military to defeat a country with a joke of a conventional military really fucked us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf you have an arg to make, make it, if your arg is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that is a strawman that AVOIDS HAVVING TO TELL US WHY TAX ALLEGEDLY WORK FOR THE SYSTEM. I don't expect you to address the issue or the data. You have been told, over and over again - we quit trying to talk sense to rhys in the truther threads, why should we keep trying with you when you don't show any more comprehension than he does? You tried to act as tho capital gains tax is that much a part of the total tax revenue chart, then trued to tell us the 8% Clinton agreed to chop as a deal with the devil amounted to anything. You have never shown us a maj fed tax cut that has led to prosperity for the masses. Thanks for yet again proving the point. You're the rhys of economy threads. So no answer? Shocker. You're the Belgian of governmental understanding. And yet both Belgian and I understand that it's the small businesses and the people that make up the economy, not government - guess we're both *still* ahead of you. Of course, everyone here but you already knew that. Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? And I think it's an immature understanding to think it's just small business and the people, it's - Government - Small business - workers - corporations - Military It's all these and probably other agencies/demographics where each has its part, it's grossly simplistic to narrow it to any 1 or 2 of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #39 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. We also have no shortage of history of what happens to nations who's debt gets out of control. Or what has happened to every attempt at communism, something a neocom like Lucky will do best to avoid thinking about. Well, thing is simple people can't look at tax history over the last 100 years and see that in times of what you call Socialism/Communism where taxes were highest, we did the best. Lowest taxes, we did/are doing teh worst. Those who accidentally ignore boldfaced history are ignorant, those who purposely do so are intentionally ignorant or just dishonest. Show us where low taxes (capitalism) has lead to good times. Show us where high taxes (Communsim) have led to bad times. I didn;t think so, just more failed theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #40 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo if the Yahoo article says letting expire tax cuts will cost us 700B, but keeping tax cuts would cost 3T, it all is incomplete. I realize you just cut-n-pasted, so I'm not asking you, but we need to see the parent pub befroe we can understand their methodology. Well Lucky...it is a cut and paste from the article you cited. Wasn't it you that called this brilliant? Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. I didn't call the article brilliant, I called Obama's fiscal plan brillaint. I looked for and cited the agency's site, couldn't find teh article they were talking about. Again: - It's a 10-year forecast, worthless really. In 2000 could we have forecasted GWB would be elected and add 5 T to the debt, 911 would have happened? Hardly, don't hang your hat on a 10-year estimate, esp that we can't even find the article of. - Show me a major fed tax cut that has helepd. - Show me a majopr fed tax incr that has hurt. You gujys just keep ignoring historical data in exchange for tired, proven wrong theory/hypothesis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #41 September 9, 2010 Does Lucky even jump?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad) Wrong, taxes aren't always a partisan thing. Eisenhower kept taxes high and we did well for it. GHWB slightly raised taxes and that started a recovery. Low taxes are bad, higher taxes good; you can't show me data that speaks otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #43 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #44 September 9, 2010 QuoteRiiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Source: US Small Business Administration. QuoteDoes that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #46 September 9, 2010 Quote Quote Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Quote Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Oh, they employ just over half of all private sector employees? So factor in gov employees at all levels and they employ what, 35-40% of all workers? Awesome point Quote Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. So Quote Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Gee, if that's true, what is all this big gov hyp about? BS? BTW, show me your source. Quote Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). So just over half? Not a real sterling arrgument there. Quote Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. OK, even if your data is correct, you still haven't supported your claim that these small businesses are grossly relevant to all other sectors as your inferred. Quote Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Ah, identified. So these small businesses export that much huh? I call bullshit on that and you will be good little Mikeepoo and not post your source. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html I see a lot of major corporations producing those, unless you're hiding behind the operative word, "IDENTIFIED EXPORTERS." Apparently they mean identified in that survey. So post your RW liar site for us all. Quote Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. OK, that's irrelevant if teh patents are for insignificant things, whereas major corps invent/devise larger items that affect the GDP more directly. Quote Source: US Small Business Administration. Great, quit being Mike and post the data site. You'll wiggle out. Quote Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Quote Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it? Freeloaders, come on pouty, I haven't been to the doc forever, you likely suck down more welfare than I ever have. Just keep pretending that all is well cause you have HC, fuck others who don't and get offended by people who feel your position is sociopathic, meaning no conscience for other's pain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit. For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. For anyone who cares, don;t know why, I am a current D lic jumper. Don't jump as much as I need to, but I am current. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #48 September 9, 2010 Quote Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly. Visited The Onion News Network lately? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #49 September 9, 2010 Quote For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #50 September 10, 2010 QuoteFor once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. Well, posting data that doesn't tell the whole story leads to incomplete discussions and often incorrect attributions. Qualitative discussion is necessary to figure out what needs to be considered before you start plugging and chugging to see what correlates. Data is important, no doubt, as without it you're left with conjecture. But attribution without understanding is actually dangerous as opposed to conjecture which is merely useless. Simple generalizations about the economy and how it will react to a single input parameter (at non-trivial values) are invariably wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #36 September 9, 2010 Quote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. Capitalism is great. Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster. DING DING DING! Hey Dingy, we spend out the ass in the 40's, 50's, 60's yet the debt didn't go crazy until taxes started getting cut, the lower they were cut, the bigger the debt increases. I don;t expect a cogent answer. "Unchecked government spending is/was the recipe for disaster." We know you can't comprehend it, but there it is. I know decades of your M.I.C. has hammered the dogshit out of the debt. Your fascist boy, ramp-ing up the military to defeat a country with a joke of a conventional military really fucked us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf you have an arg to make, make it, if your arg is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that is a strawman that AVOIDS HAVVING TO TELL US WHY TAX ALLEGEDLY WORK FOR THE SYSTEM. I don't expect you to address the issue or the data. You have been told, over and over again - we quit trying to talk sense to rhys in the truther threads, why should we keep trying with you when you don't show any more comprehension than he does? You tried to act as tho capital gains tax is that much a part of the total tax revenue chart, then trued to tell us the 8% Clinton agreed to chop as a deal with the devil amounted to anything. You have never shown us a maj fed tax cut that has led to prosperity for the masses. Thanks for yet again proving the point. You're the rhys of economy threads. So no answer? Shocker. You're the Belgian of governmental understanding. And yet both Belgian and I understand that it's the small businesses and the people that make up the economy, not government - guess we're both *still* ahead of you. Of course, everyone here but you already knew that. Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? And I think it's an immature understanding to think it's just small business and the people, it's - Government - Small business - workers - corporations - Military It's all these and probably other agencies/demographics where each has its part, it's grossly simplistic to narrow it to any 1 or 2 of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotehave you even taken an economics course ? We're beyond theory. We're into history now. What you're witnessing, and what we're suffering from, is the result of a quarter of a century long experiment in laissez faire and trickle down economics. We tried it. It didn't work. Capitalism is great. Unchecked capitalism is/was the recipe for disaster. We also have no shortage of history of what happens to nations who's debt gets out of control. Or what has happened to every attempt at communism, something a neocom like Lucky will do best to avoid thinking about. Well, thing is simple people can't look at tax history over the last 100 years and see that in times of what you call Socialism/Communism where taxes were highest, we did the best. Lowest taxes, we did/are doing teh worst. Those who accidentally ignore boldfaced history are ignorant, those who purposely do so are intentionally ignorant or just dishonest. Show us where low taxes (capitalism) has lead to good times. Show us where high taxes (Communsim) have led to bad times. I didn;t think so, just more failed theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo if the Yahoo article says letting expire tax cuts will cost us 700B, but keeping tax cuts would cost 3T, it all is incomplete. I realize you just cut-n-pasted, so I'm not asking you, but we need to see the parent pub befroe we can understand their methodology. Well Lucky...it is a cut and paste from the article you cited. Wasn't it you that called this brilliant? Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. I didn't call the article brilliant, I called Obama's fiscal plan brillaint. I looked for and cited the agency's site, couldn't find teh article they were talking about. Again: - It's a 10-year forecast, worthless really. In 2000 could we have forecasted GWB would be elected and add 5 T to the debt, 911 would have happened? Hardly, don't hang your hat on a 10-year estimate, esp that we can't even find the article of. - Show me a major fed tax cut that has helepd. - Show me a majopr fed tax incr that has hurt. You gujys just keep ignoring historical data in exchange for tired, proven wrong theory/hypothesis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #41 September 9, 2010 Does Lucky even jump?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Why don't you explain the brilliance of spending 3 trillion vs. 700 billion. Well, duh..... government spending is ALWAYS good!!! (unless it's the Republicans doing it, then it's bad bad bad) Wrong, taxes aren't always a partisan thing. Eisenhower kept taxes high and we did well for it. GHWB slightly raised taxes and that started a recovery. Low taxes are bad, higher taxes good; you can't show me data that speaks otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 September 9, 2010 QuoteRiiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Source: US Small Business Administration. QuoteDoes that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 September 9, 2010 QuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 September 9, 2010 Quote Quote Riiiight, it's just the small businesses and teh people, whatever, "the people" is supposed to mean. Quote Yes, that's correct - small business. You know, the ones that: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Oh, they employ just over half of all private sector employees? So factor in gov employees at all levels and they employ what, 35-40% of all workers? Awesome point Quote Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. So Quote Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Gee, if that's true, what is all this big gov hyp about? BS? BTW, show me your source. Quote Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). So just over half? Not a real sterling arrgument there. Quote Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. OK, even if your data is correct, you still haven't supported your claim that these small businesses are grossly relevant to all other sectors as your inferred. Quote Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Ah, identified. So these small businesses export that much huh? I call bullshit on that and you will be good little Mikeepoo and not post your source. http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html I see a lot of major corporations producing those, unless you're hiding behind the operative word, "IDENTIFIED EXPORTERS." Apparently they mean identified in that survey. So post your RW liar site for us all. Quote Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. OK, that's irrelevant if teh patents are for insignificant things, whereas major corps invent/devise larger items that affect the GDP more directly. Quote Source: US Small Business Administration. Great, quit being Mike and post the data site. You'll wiggle out. Quote Does that mean the people who you like to deny HC ins to? Quote Which ones? The ones that are getting their benefits cut under Obamacare (Medicare), the ones that are going to be paying higher premiums under Obamacare (people already carrying insurance), or the freeloaders like you who won't get insurance until someone else is footing the bill for it? Freeloaders, come on pouty, I haven't been to the doc forever, you likely suck down more welfare than I ever have. Just keep pretending that all is well cause you have HC, fuck others who don't and get offended by people who feel your position is sociopathic, meaning no conscience for other's pain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 September 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteDoes Lucky even jump? And this is germane to the conversation exactly HOW, in a political sub-forum? You want to argue against Lucky's points, that's cool - trying to make some vague smear based on jump numbers is bullshit. For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. For anyone who cares, don;t know why, I am a current D lic jumper. Don't jump as much as I need to, but I am current. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #48 September 9, 2010 Quote Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly. Visited The Onion News Network lately? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 September 9, 2010 Quote For once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #50 September 10, 2010 QuoteFor once we agree. Who cares what classes anyone has or has not attended, if they jump, how much, how long, etc. Post data. Well, posting data that doesn't tell the whole story leads to incomplete discussions and often incorrect attributions. Qualitative discussion is necessary to figure out what needs to be considered before you start plugging and chugging to see what correlates. Data is important, no doubt, as without it you're left with conjecture. But attribution without understanding is actually dangerous as opposed to conjecture which is merely useless. Simple generalizations about the economy and how it will react to a single input parameter (at non-trivial values) are invariably wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
