Reply With Quote
Norms if you are invading france in 1944 with most of the workforce in the military...
(snippy comment deleted by author)
http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
Data in the Administration’s own Mid-Session Budget Review indicates that the tax cuts have played a larger role than all other legislation enacted since the start of 2001 in the emergence of the current sizable budget deficit, and that the tax cuts account for the majority of the current deficit.
The Mid-Session Budget Review, released July 30, shows that to date, the tax cuts have accounted for 57 percent of the cost of all legislation enacted since the Administration took office. The tax cuts thus have contributed more to the worsening fiscal picture than all other new government policies combined — more than the sum of the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, increases in homeland security, and all domestic spending increases.
Norms if you are invading france in 1944 with most of the workforce in the military...
(snippy comment deleted by author)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-13-2006 at 01:03 PM.
I agree with the section from the above editorial:
Democrats are right that the White House February estimate of a $423 billion budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2006 was inflated, perhaps to be able to claim progress later this election year.
But to know where this OPINION peice errs is actually pretty simple.
It attributes, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, economic growth of the last few years almost exclusively to the tax cuts.
It ignores studies that have shown that the effect of those tax cuts were less than what proponents, such as yourself, and the WSJ claim.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
A study by Mark Zandi, the chief economist at the independent economic research firm Economy.com, finds the tax cuts were poorly designed for purposes of stimulating the economy.
It also claims that the tax cuts were responsible for all business investment in the last few periods, totally ignoring the fact that companies have been not only pretty tight-fisted in investments, but even with the record profit levels that increased productivity has offered, haven't been investing in a way that would really help the economy.
Large businesses have been doing record stock buy-backs with those profits, essentially saying that they don't know what to invest those profits in that would make more than giving the profits out to the shareholders. This strongly indicatest that this wave of "investment" from the tax cuts either doesn't really exist or is not attributable to those tax cuts.
AVERAGED? Prove your fact.
Quite frankly most of Yoni's bull on this topic is just that:
Bull .
The more one actually knows about the topics that he brings up the more of a psuedo-intellectual he becomes:
--reliance on opinion pieces to support arguments
--lopsided arguments that either ignore obvious drawbacks, or dismiss them outright without any intellectually honest reason for doing so
--continual diminution of anybody who disagrees with his viewpoint
--reliance on single source material that generally has an admitted bias
--never admitting he is wrong about anything
--never admitting that others might know more about any given topic than he does
The list goes on.
Here is a good list of what REAL critical thinkers actually do:
Critical thinkers: distinguish between fact and opinion; ask questions; make detailed observations; uncover assumptions and define their terms; and make assertions based on sound logic and solid evidence.
Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.
Simply do a brief google search under the topic of critical thinking or better yet logical fallacies and Yonivore's shortcomings become readily apparent.
^^Spoken like a true poster. The resident expert, right? Horse hockey. Most of us
have a hard time with balancing our bank account, but we are going to attempt to
show everyone else what experts we are on the national debt.
There has been an imbalance on nearly every aspect of our balance of payments,
national debt and any other aspect of our national budget since I can remember. Which
happens to be a long time. Nothing really bad has happened, except for the
Carter years, when the interest rate and inflation was very serious problems.
After he was voted out of office and some folks with a little common sense got
back into office things have gone pretty well.
So in my humble opinion, give it a rest. I have seen nothing that really impressed
me very much in any of the arguments.
Heh, a "true poster".
You will note that the worst I tend to say about anybody is that they don't seem to be a good critical thinker. I am as guilty as anybody at times of losing my temper and "flaming" but I try to avoid it, if possible, and will go back and edit out these bits. Insults merely detract from reasoned debate, and serve little purpose.
The only real requirement is that one do a bit of reading and educate themselves on basic macroeconomics. I understand that people have their own opinions, and as long as you have some data or reasoning to form a basis for an opinion, this is a good thing, because it allows ideas to be evaluated based on merit.
If nothing I have presented "impresses" you, here is a question:
What would impress you?
What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient to prove the thesis that the tax cuts were not really as effectual as the WSJ editorial claims they are?
...It doesn't ac ulate.
???
!!!
my thoughts exactly
I sense a new siggy in the offing...
Since I was not arguing for the absence of government, but rather for a smaller public sector, that would make yours a strawman argument.I really dislike "strawman" arguments and wasn't attempting to make one. I was merely pointing out what happens in the absence of a government as some libertarians call for.
Don't think Somalia. Think... privatizing NASA and other non-essential government initiatives.
Actually I do. It's you who seems to be clueless.
It's still debt. The Government still needs to repay it. A bond is a form of IOU, in case you didn't know.
Sure all this is true. I actually own US T-bills. Nevertheless, if the US Government issues to many bills, notes and bonds, it's incurring in additional DEBT. If you borrow too much, you might not be able to repay it. This is how it works for people, and this is how it works for Governments. I know what I'm talking about. I'm from Argentina.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions