"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Again, the notion that by dipping your bucket into one side of the lake and then pouring it back in on the other side and claim you are raising the lakes level can only be believed by the gullible, the ignorant or those who willingly suspend their disbelief.
Your argument is based on fallacy and draws a invalid conclusion because of it.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This is a complex question and is fallacious. So I will not answer it. My argument is in support of cash for clunkers however.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
No, it is in support of cash for clunkers. Nice try at a straw man.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
No, I addressed this. You are commuting the fallacy of division to relate cash for clunkers to the entire debt. Cash for clunkers is a very small portion of the 10 to 11 trillion dollar debt.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
My point is your arguments against cash for clunkers are fallacious and draw invalid conclusions. I argue in favor of cash for clunkers as I think it has benefited the economy.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Here, read this again:
Originally Posted by drz-400I will now if you can prove my argument wrong. Otherwise you should admit my argument is the better one.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
With that, it begs the question; how does taking money from one class of individual and giving it to another class of individual for purely partisan political purposes going to help an economic recession?
In other words, what this program constitutes, as does the whole notion about the stimulus (pork project) program, is merely an attempt to dip the water bucket into one side of the economic lake, walking over to the other side having a BIG news conference while pouring the water back into the lake claiming you are increasing the level of the lake.
How does that make consumers start buying again?
To recap all you have proven to me is the economy is in a downturn and this program (cash for clunkers) amounts to taking money from one group and giving it to another group.
I happen to think cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, selling cars, and stimulating the auto industry during this recession. The article supports my opinion saying:
The article does say cash for clunkers has been slow to pay for some sold cars. This is a downside to the program that I will not deny, but it does not mean the program has been a failure. Especially when at the end of the article it said, “…Billion thinks he'll get his money eventually, it just may take longer than what the government first said.”
The above is not an argument; it is merely an opinion which cannot be supported by any facts.
My argument will bear itself out when after the next quarter jobs continue to disappear, unemployment continues to rise, consumers continue to hold onto what little cash they have, businesses continue to shut down at an alarming rate, banks continue to close at an alarming rate, home foreclosures continue to climb and commercial foreclosures become the latest news.
Unlike you, I cannot wallow in self induced denial pretending that this administration has the first clue about economics based on the idiotic assumption that Government can borrow and print their way into an economic recovery based on purely partisan political purposes.
The bottom line is that up until now, the Democrat morons who infest our Government have been dishonest about the tax increases it will take to pay for their beloved Librul agenda; but the bottom line is that it will be ALL of us who continue to pay for it and will continue to stifle recovery because of the criminally negligent way this Government is spending.
Those are FACTS, not just OPINIONS. We haven’t even touched on the effect State Governments like Michigan’s, New York’s and California’s are impacting consumer confidence with their own vast set of tax increases and failed Democrat policies.
Originally Posted by Truth DoctorThis was your first argument. It is a non-Sequitur becuase it affirms the consequent. I already have discounted this arguement in my first post.Originally Posted by Truth Doctor
It is, I argued cash for clunkers was effective at increasing demand for cars, the amount of cars sold, and stimulating the auto industry. You asked me if I was arguing in support of something different, the entire government budget, so you could easily tear it down.Originally Posted by Truth Doctor
This seems to fit another fallicy you continue to make, Division.
Cash for clunkers is not the only part of the government budget that created the $1.6 trillion defecit; in fact, it is a small part of it. Cash for clunkers was expected to cost $3 billion, thats 0.2% of the entire defecit and 0.1% of the entire budget ($3 trillion).
You fail again to support your conclusion (hence why you say you are begging the question, which is a fallicy in a debate); that it will not help and it is purely partisan, and leave me with the burden of proof. You cannot simply assert an arguement.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
In theory, it encourages consumers start buying again by offering incentives to buy a car. In practice it seems to have worked.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
I will stick with my original argument that it has in fact helped to increase the demand for cars and the amount of cars sold as well as stimulate the auto industry.
The article contains information to back up my arguement:
I want to make sure you realize this is information saying the auto industry has been stimulated by increased sales and the particular car dealership in the article sold a large amount of cars during the month cash for clunkers was running. These are not my opinions.“Auto makers will release their monthly sales reports Tuesday and they're expected to show the first year-to-year increase since 2007.
During the month long program, Billion Automotive sold close to a thousand vehicles…”
Maybe if you did not argue by question I would know your position. Still, you were asking me if my arguement was suggesting watching the debt increase everyday was a good thing. I said no. Do I really have to state my arguement again?Originally Posted by Truth Doctor
You also introduce a previously unsaid position, that cash for clunkers is stupid for demolishing used cars.
I disagree with this aspect of the program as well. My original position on cash for clunkers remains, however.
You have argued with opinion and fallicy. You may have presented facts about the economy and debt but you fail to recognize the connection you draw with those facts and cash for clunkers is fallacious.Originally Posted by Truth Doctor
I am sure over the next 12 months we will have plenty of opportunity to dispel the mythical efforts by you and Obama's administration that Government spending money they don't have will lead to recovery won't we?
The notion that you can steal money from one person and give it to another as a good way to boost economic output is absurd to say the least; but lets give it some time and then perhaps the REALITY of what I am posting will have had time to sink in.
I am just curious how many more months of economic doldrums and bad news it will take for those of you who desperately cling to the idiotic economic policies of this administration.
FACT: things will be getting MUCH worse over the next six months and the Christmas buying season will be one of the worst on record. I can only say I am glad I am not a retailer right now.
Fact: that is unrelated to cash for clunkers.Originally Posted by Truth Detector
You cannot comprehend that this is a fallicy. It is the fallicy of division.
I have accepted this reality. Every transaction in the economy takes money from one person and gives it to another. How can this hurt the economy or cause cash for clunkers to fail?Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Your views are also an example of what I call the difference between Liberal thinking and Conservative thinking; Liberals think the economic pie is finite and therefore, if one person gets MORE, some other person must correspondingly have given something up. But this is false; the economic pie is infinite and through private investment, technology inventions and new businesses can grow infinitely. The jobs created by the development of Apple Computers and Microsoft are two great examples.
How does that mean cash for clunkers has failed?
You put your words in my mouth.
I said a transaction in the economy involves a transfer of money from one person to another. How is this wrong by definition? It has nothing to do with the economy growing or shrinking.