View Poll Results: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the stimulus failed, including its huge amount of tax cuts

    14 43.75%
  • No, it didn't fail and the tax cuts helped

    18 56.25%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

  1. #41
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

    You cant really measure the stimulus in terms of success. The stimulus was designed in a state of panic and compromise. Those are not ideal for creating laws. This occured because politicians and people a like didnt know what to do after they allowed such a decline in our economy. This stimulus is the outcome of that no one wanted or able to find a solution except those who proposed solutions and even they gave in to the very people who admittedly had no idea what to do. The fact that we even needed a stimulus is saying it shouldnt be thought of in the same category of success. I measure the stimulus on failures. The stimulus to me was a success because every failure before it has been proven to be failures. The stimulus is the most successful option ouy of those failures which was all we ever knew it is not a new creation. The stimulus is a successful failure only to be measured by other failures to govern properly.

  2. #42
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which is why your idiotic notion that people saying the Stimulus has Failed somehow proves they feel "Tax Cuts" in general fail.
    Because a third of the stimulus was take cuts? Why is it idiotic to highlight people calling $282 billion in tax cuts a failure?

    If you, as people here have said, called the whole stimulus a failure and then said tax cuts would have worked better, be acting logically?

    The stimulus, with its $282 billion in tax cuts failed, so let's have more tax cuts?

    That's not logical.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

    You can keep repeating your same illogical, incorrect, swiss-cheese holed stance, it doesn't make it right. Because something was part of a larger package and as a whole that package failed does not automatically translate that every individual action within said package did not, or can not, work in the future.

    If you eat Salad, a Big Mac, and a full Pizza as your diet its illogical to conclude that when you gain wait you should not eat any of those three again because obviously they ALL are bad.

    If you go out one night hoping not to get too drunk and you drink 1/3 water for the night, 1/3 tequilla, and 1/3 whiskey and end up blacking out and having a major hang over your attempt to not get drunk failed but that doesn't mean you should avoid water because obviously that contributed to it.

    If you passed a law to help reduce the damage over a year of fires in the town, and 1/3 of it was improved equipment but 1/3 of it was decreasing pay and 1/3 of it was decreasing the training funding If the amount of fire damage goes up or stays the same you don't say "Oh, we should never improve equipment anymore because obviously that is an abject failure". No, you realize its was a failure as a whole because despite the equipment you had less people wanting to man it due to decreased pay and less people very skilled in doing it due to decreased training.

    Simply because something is part of a larger package, which all together fails, does not mean that each individual part is necessarily bad.

    Add on to the fact that many of the "tax cuts" were actually one time "tax breaks" or "Tax credits", and the biggest one of these was actually started under Bush so its hardly fitting to give Obama sole "Credit" for it if you're going to give it (in regards to the new home buyer credit). Additionally many of those that recieved this "Tax Credit" did not get a tax CUT, because they paid 0 in income taxes anyways. They were essentially getting free money that they were not previously paying in through income tax. So not only was this not exactly "tax cuts" in the way that most republicans talk in regards to what would be best to help "stimulate" things.

    Regardless, even if you want to keep pushing the pathetic talking point like a nice little stool pidgeon that you're appearing to be it still does not mean that "Tax Cuts" of any kind, in any way, must be assumed to not work if you believe that the Stimulus as a complete package did not work.

  4. #44
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You can keep repeating your same illogical, incorrect, swiss-cheese holed stance, it doesn't make it right. Because something was part of a larger package and as a whole that package failed does not automatically translate that every individual action within said package did not, or can not, work in the future.
    So you are saying that people who called the entire stimulus a failure explicitly do not mean that tax cuts, as part of the stimulus didn't fail?

    Are you reading what you are posting?

    Basically, your argument is if I state that 100% of something is blue, I actually mean parts of it are red. That assigning an adjective to the entire lot of something really means I an explicitly arguing that some of the lot don't have that adjective?

    And yes, calling the entire package a failure does mean you argue that every part of it failed. If you don't think the stimulus as an entire package failed, you would say certain parts of the package failed.

    Why would you characterize the entire thing a failure when you actually thought parts of it worked? That does not make logical sense. It's like saying you hate all every single cat means you actually like some of them. That's what you arguing. That people who called the entire package a failure really mean they think parts of it worked. You saying you hate all vegetables really means you like broccoli and spinach? You saying that you think every single Muslim out there are terrorists actually means you think some are? What kind of language are you using? It's not English.

    Your analogies have already been discounted by Goldenboy. Please refute those rebuttals before attempting to attempt to use them again.

    No, you realize its was a failure as a whole because despite the equipment you had less people wanting to man it due to decreased pay and less people very skilled in doing it due to decreased training.
    Except in that case, you would recognize that PARTS of it worked rather then calling the whole thing a failure.

    Simply because something is part of a larger package, which all together fails, does not mean that each individual part is necessarily bad.
    Then why did they say the whole thing failed? That nothing it did helped? That the stimulus didn't do anything? If in fact, individual parts rather then the whole were the problem, then individual parts would have helped. Saying it didn't do a damn thing does not in terms of proper English suggest you think parts of it worked.

    Add on to the fact that many of the "tax cuts" were actually one time "tax breaks" or "Tax credits", and the biggest one of these was actually started under Bush so its hardly fitting to give Obama sole "Credit" for it if you're going to give it (in regards to the new home buyer credit). Additionally many of those that recieved this "Tax Credit" did not get a tax CUT, because they paid 0 in income taxes anyways. They were essentially getting free money that they were not previously paying in through income tax. So not only was this not exactly "tax cuts" in the way that most republicans talk in regards to what would be best to help "stimulate" things.
    Cute. First things first, a tax credit that is going to stick around for a while is in fact a tax cut, especially since it is a direct reduction in the total liability with the capacity to move people down tax brackets. In the same fashion, a tax break does the same thing. Moving down tax brackets results in a tax cut for these people as they are no longer being taxed at a higher rate. Their rate has been effectively cut.

    Second, many people who do pay taxes did get many of these credits. I should know. I inputted many of them to reduce taxes this tax season. Furthermore, there's a difference between refundable and non-refundable. Having a non-refundable tax credit reduce your taxes to less then zero does not equate to free money.

    Regardless, even if you want to keep pushing the pathetic talking point like a nice little stool pidgeon that you're appearing to be it still does not mean that "Tax Cuts" of any kind, in any way, must be assumed to not work if you believe that the Stimulus as a complete package did not work.
    Saying the whole stimulus failed, that it did nothing and it was a total waste that resulted in no change to the economy logically in the context of English does not suggest you think that parts of it worked.

    Well, I do practice English. Not sure about you after this post.

    Hey, I hate all vegetables means I actually like broccoli?

    You tell me.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: The Stimulus failed, including that $282 Billion in tax cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Comparing the stimulus pieces to ones diet trends is off base. Reason be, you are associating "fat and cholesterol" with fiscal spending, and associating "salads" with tax deductions. In a zero bound interest rate environment, tax cuts will definitely have a negative multiplier effect due to deflationary fears (lack of monetary velocity). It is for this reason alone that fiscal spending is more effective in this environment, it begins to stimulate monetary velocity.

    If anything, you should reverse your roles between salad and fatty foods
    Congratulations, you took an analogy in a literalistic sense and attempted to debate it on its literallistic rather than symbolic association. You may as well be saying "You can't compare the two because ones food and ones money" with your argument.

    The statement remains the same. Stating that someone believes OVERALL that something has failed/is ugly/is bad/doesn't work/etc does not constitute the belief that everything within it is will fail in every way that it could ever be tried.

    I'm done dealing with OC, as he's reduced to a point of giving no actual attempt to debate or counter an actual argument, instead grabbing onto your strawmans or just outright ignring things while stomping his feet repeating his claim over and over again that strikes against all logic and common sense, let alone reasoned objectivity. Yet he did give a potential good example

    If I see a painting, and contained within that painting are the colors Red, Blue, and Yellow, and I say “That painting is utterly and completely ugly”. Does this somehow mean then that, based on me finding the entire Sum of the Parts ugly, that I must now find ugly from here until eternity each of the various parts that made up that picture? Because it included Red, Blue, and Yellow…and because I found that picture completely ugly…does that mean the next time I see a picture that is predominantly using the color blue that I somehow much immediately ALSO think that is completely ugly? Could it not be the WAY in which the colors were used? Could it not be the WAY in which the colors played off of each other? Could it not by the way one color overwhelmed the other that could’ve had a chance to be pleasing to the eye, but its overwhelming nature condemned the whole thing to be a monstrosity? Are you telling me that no, somehow, someway, because I found the picture made of those three colors ugly I therefore must find those three colors ugly in EVERY use of them?

    The unparrelled ignorance, and arrogance, in stating the notion that one cannot believe that a specific plan...the entirety of the plan, the way it was handled, the way it has worked, the way it plays off each other, and its OVERALL EFFECT...is an abject failure but that individual PRINCIPLES found within that plan can actually work and function in other aspects if done in a different manner, in conjunction with a different set of situations, or in a manner that is varied from the way it was done.

    Essentially, what you and more precisely he is saying, is that one may not judge something based upon the Sum of its Parts but that everything must be judged by its individual parts lest you be unable to ever use said part again.

    That’s abject stupidity. It strains reality or any form of credibility.

    To believe that to be true one must actually come to believe that there is only one way and one way only to give "tax cuts" of any form, to believe that other actions in conjunction with "tax cuts" have ZERO affect on their viability, that a programs NET gain cannot be rightly measured and that a piece of legislation...or anything else for that matter....cannot be judged AS A WHOLE while also being able to separately speak about its individual parts of principles.

    This can go on, and on, through all works of life. The Detroit Lions were the worst football team ever in 2008. They were a complete, and utter failure. That TEAM was horrible, the worst of its kind. And yet, Calvin Johnson is an amazing player, with great skill, and talent. As a singular entity, Calvin Johnson could be very much a success. But as a portion of a larger entity, he is included in that abject failure because when you judge the SUM of that team it was an abject failure.

    I believe St. Anger to be an abject and complete failure on the part of Metallica. An atrocious album that is a slight upon their amazing and vast musical library. That said, if I took a particular song…say St. Anger…complete on its own or perhaps as a song on another of their CD’s I could perhaps acknowledge it as being a decent song. However, when part of a whole…as part of the entire album, and more the entirety of their musical selection…the album is an abject, complete, musical failure.

    TV? Back to You was a sitcom that had Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton as the stars. It was an incredibly boring and unfunny show, poorly written and subpar acting due to seemingly very poor chemistry from the bit I watched it (and judging on how quickly it went off the air). And yet, individually, both Grammer and Heaton have shown in the past and current in the case of Heaton that placed in a different environment, in a different situation, that a different result can occur.

    Hell, overall, I feel the Bush Administration's entire run in office was rather poor. By stating that does that somehow mean that I must believe EVERYTHING he did was poor? Does that mean I can't be in favor of certain things he did, actually very much like some things he did, but believe that OVERALL it was a poor administration?

    Yet how is me saying "The Bush Administration's run in office was poor" but thinking say, his THEORY behind the majority of the patriot act was good, any different than saying "The Obama Stimulus is a failure" while believing the theory behind tax cuts to stimulate the economy is good?

    I can go on, and on, and on. It is absolutely mind boggling to me to sit here and watch people try, with a straight face, to state that it is absolutely, completely, impossible to state that a particular thing that encompasses many other parts is bad/failure/ugly/etc while thinking that individual parts of it in a different situation could be good. There is absolutely nothing illogical, nor hypocritical, in believing that a specific thing is ultimately bad while believing that some of the things found within it….if done in a different way, or in conjunction with different things, or even attempted at a different time…could be a success.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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