What Warren said....Follow

You'll notice Gbaji still hasn't supported his strawman claims regarding the Bush tax cuts

I've noticed the more desperate Gbaji is to spin away from the truth, the more he types. I guess honesty doesn't need that sort of obfuscation.

Just did. Although I'm sure you'll argue that's not sufficient. I guess nothing short of a signed letter from every elected Democrat saying "We intend to try to raise taxes while not cutting any spending" will convince you of the truth.

Have you by chance read The Hobbit lately?

Yeah, I mean I didn't accept your paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of frantic babbling to avoid giving a single cite so...



Nice try.

Ok. Let me say this more clearly:

If someone says: "Spending is higher today than it has ever been", it's reasonable to demand a citation. It's a fact. A number. It either is true or isn't, and we can determine that absolutely objectively.

If someone says: "Trickle down economics doesn't work", no amount of demanding a citation accomplishes anything. It's an opinion. To support it, one needs to use argument. Explain step by step why you think trickle down economics doesn't work, don't just point me at a site saying "Trickle down economics doesn't work". That's meaningless. All you've proven is that someone else thinks that it doesn't work.

They are two completely different things. One is useful since it provides information with which we can all make our own decisions. The other tells us nothing at all.

You can say the same thing a million different ways, and I don't really doubt you could. Still doesn't change the actual point that you gloriously are trying to side step. You want someone to comply to a request for citation, you in turn do the same when requested. You won't do it, then at no point should the idea even enter your mind to ask. If you want to borrow a dollar, I expect a dollar back eventually and the option to ask for a lent dollar in the future should the need arise.

Edited, Aug 17th 2011 11:31pm by lolgaxe

You honestly don't see any difference between demanding a source for a claimed fact (like whether tax rates are higher this year than last year), versus opinion (like whether or not Obamacare will cost more money than if we hadn't passed it)?

Really? That's... amazing! It's like finding someone who can't tell the difference between colors and sounds. Illogic abounds around here!

Oh what am I thinking? Most of the posters on this forum don't know the difference between facts and opinions anyway! Why expect you guys to know the difference between a source for facts versus one for opinion? Losing battle I suppose. Can't explain something to people who have no freaking concept what you're talking about. It's still just amazing to me that so many people can suffer from a lack of what I consider a pretty basic understanding of the world around them.


Oh well.

No. I've explained this to you several times now. Shall we go for one more?

I said that the Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich that our economic woes will end.

There is no single specific action here. WTF? You have the most bizarre way of thinking about things.



Single example of what? Them already doing it? Or how about several examples of statements and actions which create a pretty clear pattern? Are you refuting what happened with the discretionary budget last spring? Are you refuting the claim about liberal pundits and politicians making incorrect statements about both spending and taxes in historical context? Are you refuting the claim that several editorials have circulated attempting to blame most of our deficit today on Bush tax cuts and the costs of the wars?


I don't think any of those facts are in question, are they? If so, I'll gladly dig up sources to provide those things. But you haven't questioned those. What you've questioned is my conclusion about the objective of the Democrats in relation to those things. I'm looking at a pattern of actions and statements and drawing a conclusion from those things. There is not "cite" that can prove that.


It's an opinion. My opinion. And it's based on a whole set of data points over time. You're free to demand that I provide sources for the facts I use to base my opinion (and my argument in defense of my opinion), but you can't demand that I provide a source for my own opinion. I *am* the source for that. It's based on my own reasoning. I'll gladly explain that reasoning to you (which I've done repeatedly), but simply saying "you can't provide a cite for that" doesn't constitute a valid counter argument.

Better yet, let's make it 84 half-billions.

I won't pretend to know what we should do in regards to taxes, I do think it would be nice if we could work on how the tax dollars we DO have are spent. Sadly we'd have to spend even more money we don't have to review and fix how we're spending the money we don't have.

Not everyone with money is a greedy grubber it seems.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/matt-damon-disgusted-by-debt-deal-says-its-criminal-that-wealthy-dont-pay-more-taxes-video/2011/08/03/gIQAtgQurI_blog.html




Edited, Aug 18th 2011 11:24am by Olorinus

And once again, you confuse "facts" with "opinion". I readily provide the facts my opinions are based on. But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion. See the difference? I even mentioned this in my last post. Joph isn't asking me to provide cites showing that liberal pundits and politicians claiming that taxes are "lower than they've ever been", or cites showing that the same people are claiming that spending isn't abnormally high (some even claim that spending is at some kind of all time historical low, which is just a blatant lie), or cites to the same people writing/parroting editorials claiming that the bulk of today's deficit can be blamed on the Bush tax cuts, Bush's medicare planD, and Bush's wars. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims about the Dems weaseling out of any real domestic spending cuts in the budget debates last spring. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Democrats have failed to write down any spending cuts they'd be willing to make. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Dems are actually talking about spending even more money for some kind of stimulus2.


Those are the facts upon which I base my conclusion, yet he is not demanding I provide support for those. You know why? Because those facts aren't in question. Instead, he demands that I provide a cite for my conclusion that the Dems are trying to create the false perception that if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts (on the rich even!) that this will solve our economic problems. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to provide a written confession from the Dems or super secret plan written in blood or something. It's my opinion about *why* they are saying and doing those things.


To support that, I use logic. There's a common pattern to statements coming from the Dems and their water carriers: That taxes are too low, and spending is either just fine, or even too low as well. What perception does that create in the midst of an known deficit problem? Don't think to hard, it might just strain your brain. It creates the perception that the best solution should be raising taxes and *not* cutting spending. Is this really surprising? I don't think so. Is anyone actually under the false perception that if the Dems could just do whatever they wanted tomorrow, that they wouldn't simply raise taxes and keep spending the same (or even increase it)? Of course they would. We all know this.


Now, I'm going a step further. How do they achieve that? They can't just do whatever they want. They don't have enough people in the House, and the public isn't terribly happy with tax increases right now. They have to get people to let them raise taxes, while making them think that... wait for it... they wont raise taxes on them!. Shocking, right? I mean, I hope we can all agree that just raising taxes on "the rich" can't possibly put more than an incredibly tiny dent in the deficit, and if they do proceed with just raising taxes to pay for the deficit, they'll have to raise taxes on a hell of a lot more people than just the rich, and do more than just cancel out the Bush rates. They'll have to create new and higher rates than even back in the Clinton era, right?

No one's going to support that. It's a losing political agenda. Duh. But if they allow spending cuts, they lose the support of their base. So who do you think they'll ***** over if they can? Remember, we presumably all agree that the Dems would simply keep spending the same or higher and pay for that increase with whatever taxes are required if they had the power to do so. So we have to assume that they will raise taxes more than just eliminating the Bush rates on the top 2% of earners. If they can, right?

But to get there, they have to lie. Period. They have no choice. Thus, they have to convince the public that they aren't going to cut all those wonderful programs they are funding, while not raising taxes on them. The only way they can do that is to convince people that this can be done by just eliminating those Bush rates on just "the rich". Ergo, I conclude that they're selling this to the public. Not blatantly, of course. That would be too easy to refute. None of them will say something like: "We can balance the budget if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich". But by putting out separate messages which combine to make people think that they'll oppose spending cuts, support eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the rich, and fix the deficit, they can make people think that all they'll do is eliminate those tax cuts.


Remember when I kept saying that Obama was promising to increase spending, and not raise taxes, and balance the budget? Same deal. He was selling a lie then as well. But because he never said all three things together, no amount of cites would "prove" this. But he said each thing separately. Funny thing, is that I correctly predicted exactly what he would do once in office back then too. I said that he'd massively increase spending, not raise taxes initially, create a huge deficit, and then use it as a lever to raise taxes. Yay for predictability.


Guess what? I'm making another prediction. The Democrats methodology right now is to convince people that they will only raise taxes on the rich, will not cut their precious social spending, but will somehow be able to fix the economy and balance the budget as well. They are selling a lie. But as long as they don't say all three of those things together, people like Joph will fall over themselves to insist that they aren't selling a lie at all. Cause there's no cite you can make showing them doing this, right? So it just must not be true? After all, we all know that when politicians plan to ***** people over, they make a point of putting their evil plans right out there in the open. Lol!


Use your brains. All the information you need to know is out there. All I've done is make some fairly easy connections. And frankly, the Dems don't really have a choice but to pursue this line anyway. I just don't see how others can't see this. Like I said, it's not only blatant, but it's their only course of action if they want to retain any political power at all.

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 12:49pm by gbaji

Or proving your assertion that "Dems are trying to sell the fairy tale that if only we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% (or whatever the number is this week), all our economic problems would be solved". But, hey! Remember what I said about how, the wronger you are, the more words you spew to frantically try to obfuscate it?

1,133 words there (not counting the quoted portion) according to MS Word to insist why you don't need to have a cite but it's not really a lame strawman

Edited, Aug 18th 2011 3:01pm by Jophiel