Guenny wrote:
I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I
Really?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Mitch McConnell Blinked First
Mitch McConnell Blinked FirstFollow
Really?
Time to move this thread to OoT.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Smash used to do military consulting. Working for a healthcare corporation would be a step to the left in his career choices.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
Anyway, I'm not sure what you're bizarre obsession is with anti-intellectualism. The reality is that millions of people have a better understanding of millions of things than you do, and some of those things legitimately can't be explained adequately in this format. It's not a big deal.
David Brooks recently wrote:
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
David Brooks recently wrote:
the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
They've joined the Democrat party in this respect now.
varusword75 wrote:
lmao...this is democrats and radical liberals panicing.
David Brooks is a radical liberal? Huh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
All Canadian are.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Before Gbaji runs in here and ejaculates all over himself in his excitement to make a point that exists only in his mind, I'm not saying Mr. Brooks is some steadfast conservative or Republican either. I just liked his description of things. When I read the part about "The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities", the bell couldn't have rung any louder.
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 10:15am by Jophiel
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 10:15am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
All Canadian are.
To be fair, if you're facing east, all of Canada is left of the US.
varusword75 wrote:
Could it be that the president populated his cabinet with such "scholars" and they have all failed miserably, even with a democrat majority, and now they have all quit and returned to academia?
Nope. Not at the scale at which you guys demonstrate your anti-intellectualism.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
lmao...this is democrats and radical liberals panicing.
David Brooks is a radical liberal? Huh.
No, he's a "moderate". Go, go mushy middle!
Kill it with fire!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Varus
Your words mean less than nothing. You're so called "intellectualism" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shape society the way you think it should be. And anyone who disagrees with you or your methods you give meaningless lables like "radical liberal".
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 1:09pm by Uglysasquatch
Your words mean less than nothing. You're so called "intellectualism" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shape society the way you think it should be. And anyone who disagrees with you or your methods you give meaningless lables like "radical liberal".
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 1:09pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,
Your words mean less than nothing. You're so called "intellectualism" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shape society the way you think it should be. And anyone who disagrees with you or your methods you give meaningless lables like "anti-intellectual".
Quote:
Nope. Not at the scale at which you guys demonstrate your anti-intellectualism.
Your words mean less than nothing. You're so called "intellectualism" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shape society the way you think it should be. And anyone who disagrees with you or your methods you give meaningless lables like "anti-intellectual".
Way to be purposely obtuse again. You know "anti-intellectualism" refers to the current trend of ignoring, discounting, or blatantly mocking higher learning and experts in their field.
varusword75 wrote:
Ash,
You people only care about what your experts say. I can produce page after page of qualified scientists discounting human global warming but that matters little to people like you.
Honestly anyone who believes attorneys and social science professors are "intellectual" isn't firing on all cylinders.
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 12:19pm by varusword75
You people only care about what your experts say. I can produce page after page of qualified scientists discounting human global warming but that matters little to people like you.
Honestly anyone who believes attorneys and social science professors are "intellectual" isn't firing on all cylinders.
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 12:19pm by varusword75
I like how you nullified your first paragraph with your second.
varusword75 wrote:
Your words mean less than nothing.
Why can't Varus read?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Your words mean less than nothing.
Why can't Varus read?
Duh, he's a product of the public education system.
Technogeek wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Your words mean less than nothing.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
Anyway, could you do me a favor and link to a chart of spending relative to GDP for the last 20 years (or whatever you think is an appropriate time frame) so I can see this "trend line" and the massive spending we've undertaken. Or, well, *anything* that indicates government spending has grown at a particularly high rate recently relative to, well, *anything*.
Um... Sure. I'll do you one better. I'll include revenue, spending, deficit, and debt, all as a percentage of GDP, courtesy of CBO historical budget data. And I'll give you 40 years instead of 20:
Year Revenue Outlays Deficit Debt 1971 17.3 19.5 -2.1 28.1 1972 17.6 19.6 -2.0 27.4 1973 17.6 18.7 -1.1 26.0 1974 18.3 18.7 -0.4 23.9 1975 17.9 21.3 -3.4 25.3 1976 17.1 21.4 -4.2 27.5 1977 18.0 20.7 -2.7 27.8 1978 18.0 20.7 -2.7 27.4 1979 18.5 20.2 -1.6 25.6 1980 19.0 21.7 -2.7 26.1 1981 19.6 22.2 -2.6 25.8 1982 19.2 23.1 -4.0 28.7 1983 17.5 23.5 -6.0 33.1 1984 17.3 22.2 -4.8 34.0 1985 17.7 22.8 -5.1 36.4 1986 17.5 22.5 -5.0 39.5 1987 18.4 21.6 -3.2 40.6 1988 18.2 21.3 -3.1 41.0 1989 18.4 21.2 -2.8 40.6 1990 18.0 21.9 -3.9 42.1 1991 17.8 22.3 -4.5 45.3 1992 17.5 22.1 -4.7 48.1 1993 17.5 21.4 -3.9 49.3 1994 18.0 21.0 -2.9 49.2 1995 18.4 20.6 -2.2 49.1 1996 18.8 20.2 -1.4 48.4 1997 19.2 19.5 -0.3 45.9 1998 19.9 19.1 0.8 43.0 1999 19.8 18.5 1.4 39.4 2000 20.6 18.2 2.4 34.7 2001 19.5 18.2 1.3 32.5 2002 17.6 19.1 -1.5 33.6 2003 16.2 19.7 -3.4 35.6 2004 16.1 19.6 -3.5 36.8 2005 17.3 19.9 -2.6 36.9 2006 18.2 20.1 -1.9 36.5 2007 18.5 19.6 -1.2 36.2 2008 17.5 20.7 -3.2 40.3 2009 14.9 25.0 -10.0 53.5 2010 14.9 23.8 -8.9 62.1
You don't see a pattern shift in the last couple years?
Quote:
If you really want to do this, (which I imagine isn't the case, it's far easier to continue the "you think it's too complicated because YOU don't understand it" responses, I'm sure) let's start with some sort of framework. Some sort of data, then you can explain to me what you think it means, and I can agree or not.
Sure! How about the fact that for the first 38 of those 40 years not one year had outlays greater than 23.5% of GDP. A level that has been exceeded for both of the years Obama has been in office (and is projected to be exceeded this year as well).
How about the fact that for the first 38 of those 40 years not one year had a deficit greater than 6% (that same year, 1983). A level which has also been exceeded for both of the years Obama has been in office.
How about the fact that for the previous 38 of those 40 years, the highest debt% was 49.3%? A level that has been exceeded for both of the years Obama has been in office.
I'll even give you one fact that hurts my argument (but only a little bit): The same can be said about revenue. The lowest revenue for the first 38 of those 40 years was 16.1. Both Obama's years so far had lower revenue. But as I've already mentioned, those revenues weren't the result of a reduction in tax rates. They're the result of a falling economy. We knew that revenues would be down. The Democrats knew that revenues would be down. They choose to embark on massive spending anyway.
Can we agree now that I've proven that spending increased significantly during this time period? Yes?
Quote:
"Everyone knows government spending is out of control" isn't going to be sufficient, I'm afraid, if you want to continue.
That's funny given that the counter argument from the left comes in that form "Everyone knows that our current economy is because of the Bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars". You've heard that a few times in the last couple weeks, right? Probably more than a few times. I think that statement gets repeated on MSNBC at least 4 times an hour.
What I'm doing is the opposite. I'm showing actual facts and data which show that the Democrats spent to damn much money at a time when revenues were down. That's why we have historically high deficits, and why our debt is skyrocketing. Our current debt crisis is because of that spending.
You're free to argue that we had to spend that money for some economic reason or other, but can you at least acknowledge that the problem with the debt right now is because of that same spending? I've more than proven this. As I've said all along, the numbers do not lie.
Care to actually look at the data instead of parroting far left rhetoric? You might just learn something.
Edited, Jul 14th 2011 12:14pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 160
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (160)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Mitch McConnell Blinked First
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC