Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 285

Thread: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

  1. #261
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    You mean back up my opinion with facts and statements....
    No... you claimed a fact, not an opinion.
    You have done nothing to prove that your claim is, indeed a fact.
    All of the foremost experts on finance and economics share the same opinion.
    Fallacy: Appeal to authority
    Aside ftom that, this PROVES nothing.
    If i did claim it as fact, it is up to you to prove me wrong.
    No, it is up to the person that makes the claim to support said claim.
    At least it is when adults are talking.
    Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?
    Asks the guy who makes a claim of fact and then supports it solely by crying "prove me wrong!"?
    Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it...

  2. #262
    I invented Human Nature
    Z3n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-13-12 @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,251

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    sorry wrong thread
    Don't tread on me= Don't tread on my corporate masters

  3. #263
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No... you claimed a fact, not an opinion.
    You have done nothing to prove that your claim is, indeed a fact.
    The argument in question is the result of an alternate reality. Since there is no way to prove what "might" have happened, i was not making a claim of fact. Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? Please provide a link that show's i was claiming my opinion to be a fact.... If you cannot provide one, be gone.

    Fallacy: Appeal to authority
    Aside ftom that, this PROVES nothing.
    Never said that it proves anything, only that the so called experts share my sentiment.

    No, it is up to the person that makes the claim to support said claim.
    At least it is when adults are talking.
    But if you do not like my opinion, you are more than welcome to tell me why it is wrong. You have no desire to do so. Instead, this is a little game of antics to make yourself feel better because you cannot add to the discussion in a meaningful way.

    Asks the guy who makes a claim of fact and then supports it solely by crying "prove me wrong!"?
    Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it...
    There is the problem.... You mistook my opinion as a fact. Actually.... you didn't. All you are trying to do is pigeon hole me into a corner and it will not work. Bitching and moaning is about all we can expect from you when it comes to discussions that pertain to economics or finance. If i am wrong, then why have your only replies to this thread in the last few days lack any attempt at making sound economic commentary?

    You fail goob, for the nteenth time this month!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #264
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,068

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    How 'bout not spending a trillion dollars on pork? Think that might help? Plus, the government can get thier dead asses out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best...make money. There's your tax increase.

    Make too much sense, I'm sure.
    Pork? Spending a trillion dollars? No.... first, it was $800B. Of the $800B, $275B was in the form of tax cuts. Thus, of the paltry $525B stimulus bill, $50B was for unemployment (goes with every deep recession); $75B for medicad assistance and $80B for states to help there budgets (so they would not have to fire teachers/police, etc.).... so maximum available for 'pork' would be $320B... but this was generally for road construction (some pork...most not) and green projects (ok, that may be fair game)....

    Actually, many argued the stimulus was not big enough.... but, in the end it seems to be working...much better than the non-plan from the other side of the aisle.

    .... to work our way out of the deficit, both sides (those that can't deal with tax increases and those that can't deal with spending cuts) have to suck it up and do the right thing. Anyone that thinks that one approach solves the problem is nothing short of being a fool....

  5. #265
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Nifty. Nice charts, too.

    How does all of this necessarily -- any by necessarily, I mean that it WILL happen becaue it MUST happen -- lead to an economic condition as bad as or worse than the great depression, and that there is no chance of any other outcome or condition.

    BTW... Goldenboy thanks you for carrying his water for him -- its pretty clear you indeed have the grasp of the subject that he wants everyone to think he has.
    Well, falling house prices and non-conforming loans that were made during the housing bubble defaulting were basically necessary for the economy.

    House prices had to return to historical levels. People realized that houses were not worth the price, or there was an excessive amount of houses on the market. Either way, prices for houses were too high.

    Loans that were made to underqualified (for lack of better term) buyers in the bubble were going to defualt, they had negative equity after home prices had declined. Basically meaning there morgage was now worth more than their house.

    This compounded the problem because as people defaulted credit became harder to get, and demand for houses would drop more, and prices would drop more. Also foreclosed homes sell for less, and when a lot of foreclosures are happening it creates an excess of built homes in the market. This sort of thing feeds off of each other.

    The rest of the financial market got pulled into the crisis because people began realizing that large players in the financial industry actually owned these loans. This caused a fear within the market. No one knew who had these bad assets so they were afraid to lend money to each other. When Lehman Bros. collapsed it turned into a full fledged panic. Banks were investing in only t-bills and bottled water, so the joke went.

    Now the difference between this crisis and others is that this panic was not just a panic. Usually the fed can extend a line of credit to banks, and people will realize the money is still there, and the panic will subside. This time we were dealing with an actual solvency crisis. Thats why we had all the bailouts.

    Now, how bad did this get? As it has already been said, yields on government bonds went lower than they did during the great depression.


    That tells me the financial market was in worse shape. Luckily we have smart people at the fed that were able to save us this time around and keep the crisis more on wall street than main street when compared to the great depression.

    Here is a cool graph comparing the worlds industrial production during the great depression and now:



    Of course there is no way to prove what would have happened had we acted differently, so I cannot really tell you based on fact that what happened now, under the same conditions as 1929 would have played out for better or worse than the great depression. But I think you can see now that the actions taken by the fed and the federal government have been appropriate (in there aims, maybe not size) and useful in adressing our current economic recession.
    Last edited by drz-400; 02-19-10 at 03:12 AM.

  6. #266
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Well, falling house prices and non-conforming loans that were made during the housing bubble defaulting were basically necessary for the economy.....
    All of this is indeed true.

    Of course there is no way to prove what would have happened had we acted differently, so I cannot really tell you based on fact that what happened now, under the same conditions as 1929 would have played out for better or worse than the great depression.
    And this is exactly MY point -- you may have some idea what might have happened, but you cannot say that it is a FACT that it would be worse.
    Thank you.

    Psst.... Golden Boy... You see this?

  7. #267
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The argument in question is the result of an alternate reality. Since there is no way to prove what "might" have happened, i was not making a claim of fact.
    This is a lie. Read what you wrote:
    The bottom line: a perfect storm arose and guess what. We are all still here, and the parking lot @ Applebee's is always full on a Friday night (unless you are in Detroit). So say what you want about macro stabilizers, the fact of the matter remains.....
    Doing nothing would have been worse. How much worse? Think 1930's worse
    .
    You claimed a fact, not posted an opinion.
    Never said that it proves anything, only that the so called experts share my sentiment.
    Then you wasted your time posting meaningless dreck.
    Of course, dreck is your forte, so...
    But if you do not like my opinion, you are more than welcome to tell me why it is wrong.
    Again: You claimed a fact. It is up to you to prove it.
    And since then, you have done exactly what I said you would do and spend pages and pages and pages doing all you could to avoid having to do so -- because this is what you always do.

    Why is that? Because you know you -cannot- prove it and aren't man enough to admit it.

    As per the norm.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 02-19-10 at 02:32 PM.

  8. #268
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Last Seen
    07-07-11 @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    406

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And this is exactly why we have a perpetual deficit. Because people freak out ZOMG TAX INCREASE over any suggestion that we cut the deficit. And other people shriek ZOMG ENTITLEMENT CUTS over the same.

    If we're ever going to balance the budget, we're going to need to rein in entitlement spending and increase taxes.
    Okay, fine. But while the idea of tax cuts/hikes gets lots of heated attention, what has anyone got to say about spending cuts?!!? Usually, not much.

  9. #269
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
    Okay, fine. But while the idea of tax cuts/hikes gets lots of heated attention, what has anyone got to say about spending cuts?!!? Usually, not much.
    We need to reform our entitlements, and the only politically feasible way I know of to do that is to have independent commissions determine what cuts to make and have Congress give the whole package an up-or-down vote, much like we do with military base closures.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #270
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Obama ‘Agnostic’ on Deficit Cuts, Won’t Prejudge Tax Increases

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is a lie. Read what you wrote:

    You claimed a fact, not posted an opinion.

    Then you wasted your time posting meaningless dreck.
    Of course, dreck is your forte, so...
    I did claim a fact.... That it would have been much worse. How much worse is, of course, my opinion. But you already knew that, and instead of having a legit discussion, you go off on a tangent. Of course we know why.... You are here to be a partisan hack and nothing else. Nobody (outside club rush-o) takes anything you say seriously because it is agenda driven and lacks substance.

    Again: You claimed a fact. It is up to you to prove it.
    Nope. You are just playing a childish game because you lack the ability to accurately and objectively discuss the subject matter.

    And since then, you have done exactly what I said you would do and spend pages and pages and pages doing all you could to avoid having to do so -- because this is what you always do.
    For the record: I am always able to discuss and argue these particular topics in an effective and intelligent manner. I have yet to see one.... That's right. One post you have made in which sound economic understanding is displayed. It's always the same 'ol rabid partisanship!

    Why is that? Because you know you -cannot- prove it and aren't man enough to admit it.

    As per the norm.
    I am not going to attempt to prove my opinion to anyone. I will discuss why it is more sound than yours (although you do that for me).

    Done arguing with a child.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •