• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

Incisor said:
Look man, you very deliberately omitted the context in your argument. You thought you could sneak it by without anyone noticing, but you failed in that regard. You claimed spending increased during Eurozone's austerity and you tried to make that argument by examining spending-to-GDP ratios. However, what that doesn't tell you is that GDP declined because that's what happens during a recession...the economy contracts.

Your reaction to being called out is to basically throw a tantrum and either play at being obtuse, or that is who you really are.
Click to expand...

DUDE YOU KNOW VERY WELL I NEVER POSTED " blah blah blah falsehood alternate fact falsehood"

anyone who links on the posting quote in post 362 which you have signed to me will be taken to post 353, which has not been delated

now you resorted to lying
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
I say don't lend Greece any more money and let the chips fall where they may. You should like that, Greece could then bring back the Drachma and print until their hearts are content and all of their problems will be solved. I wonder why the diehard liberals in Greece chose austerity over that? Could it possibly be they thought that austerity was better than the Great Depression?
Click to expand...

They didn't choose austerity, it was forced upon them. They actually held elections and threw out the people who brought austerity to Greece as a condition of getting the EU bailout.
 
Master PO said:
DUDE YOU KNOW VERY WELL I NEVER POSTED " blah blah blah falsehood alternate fact falsehood"
Click to expand...

LOL! Maybe I should have posted in your native language: "'oink oink oink, oink oink oink. Oink oink oink oink. BENGAHZIIII1!!!1!!!"
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Yeah? So what? Your point about austerity was misleading because you failed to take into account the huge declines in GDP. So I showed you where the errors in your thinking were.

There is nothing in the data that suggests anything positive about austerity. If you think you can find some glimmer of hope in those numbers, please, share it with us.
Click to expand...
so what? you quoted me on my link of 353 and said it was wrong.

however its not wrong.
 
Incisor said:
LOL! Maybe I should have posted in your native language: "'oink oink oink, oink oink oink. Oink oink oink oink. BENGAHZIIII1!!!1!!!"
Click to expand...

well thanks again, i welcome this too.

this shows you have no basis in your arguments, therefore no one here should put stock in anything you say.
 
Moderate Right said:
And what were your credentials again? Oh yeah. Five year hobbyist with no education in economics whatsoever. But, again, I love it when you talk down to me because then I know I'm getting in your craw with the truth as the only defense you have is to belittle others.
Click to expand...

What gets in my craw - and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this - is ignorance. More precisely, ignorance that is paraded around as understanding. People so stupid that they are not equipped to evaluate their own stupidity, so they plow ahead as if they actually contribute to debates that are actually miles over their heads, blissfully unaware of their own shortcomings.

I don't really care what your credentials are. If you understand a subject, you understand a subject, and if you don't, you don't. If you had a Ph.D. in economics (HAH!) and made the same vacuous arguments that you make now, you would still be wrong. And there are plenty of Econ Ph.D.s out there who have it all wrong.
 
Master PO said:
well thanks again, i welcome this too. this shows you have no basis in your arguments, therefore no one here should put stock in anything you say.
Click to expand...

Nice convenient excuse for you to not be held accountable for your position. Very mature.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I don't really care what your credentials are. If you understand a subject, you understand a subject, and if you don't, you don't. If you had a Ph.D. in economics (HAH!) and made the same vacuous arguments that you make now, you would still be wrong. And there are plenty of Econ Ph.D.s out there who have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

They consistently and repeatedly inflate, invent, and/or exaggerate their credentials to lend their argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have.
 
Master PO said:
so what? you quoted me on my link of 353 and said it was wrong.

however its not wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't wrong? It certainly doesn't advance your argument.

You need to be more precise in general with your data. #358 is a mishmash of different measurements over a different span of years, for example, complete with multiple identical graphs. Spending as a % of GDP is different than spending. Get your act together.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
It isn't wrong? It certainly doesn't advance your argument.

You need to be more precise in general with your data. #358 is a mishmash of different measurements over a different span of years, for example, complete with multiple identical graphs. Spending as a % of GDP is different than spending. Get your act together.
Click to expand...

dude you better check the facts and compare the charts from your site, and the government spending per GDP per the pic i posted 353
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
dude you better check the facts and compare the charts from your site, and the government spending per GDP per the pic i posted 353
Click to expand...

I'm using the same site that you are - Trading Economics. And I saw your chart, too. Do you not understand the math behind them? It's the shrinking GDP that makes your spending-to-GDP ratios rise, not increased spending. That's why I showed you the raw data behind both - showing declining GDPs and declining government spending over the 10-year period that actually encompasses pre- and post-austerity.
 
Master PO said:
DUDE YOU KNOW VERY WELL I NEVER POSTED " blah blah blah falsehood alternate fact falsehood"

anyone who links on the posting quote in post 362 which you have signed to me will be taken to post 353, which has not been delated

now you resorted to lying
Click to expand...

You did try to use this data:

67212991d1485365160-reverand-paul-gives-sermon-book-fiscal-conservatism-screen-shot-2017-01-25-10-25-18-am-jpg


To push this false narrative:
Master PO said:
European Austerity Is a Myth
Click to expand...

You simply lack the courage to admit both the weakness of your position and the error.
 
Incisor said:
They didn't choose austerity, it was forced upon them. They actually held elections and threw out the people who brought austerity to Greece as a condition of getting the EU bailout.
Click to expand...

Nothing was forced on them. They had a choice of either austerity or no more loans. They chose austerity and more loans.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
What gets in my craw - and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this - is ignorance. More precisely, ignorance that is paraded around as understanding. People so stupid that they are not equipped to evaluate their own stupidity, so they plow ahead as if they actually contribute to debates that are actually miles over their heads, blissfully unaware of their own shortcomings.

I don't really care what your credentials are. If you understand a subject, you understand a subject, and if you don't, you don't. If you had a Ph.D. in economics (HAH!) and made the same vacuous arguments that you make now, you would still be wrong. And there are plenty of Econ Ph.D.s out there who have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that because it is rather obvious that the only thing you understand is failed liberal policies. You are an expert on that.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I'm using the same site that you are - Trading Economics. And I saw your chart, too. Do you not understand the math behind them? It's the shrinking GDP that makes your spending-to-GDP ratios rise, not increased spending. That's why I showed you the raw data behind both - showing declining GDPs and declining government spending over the 10-year period that actually encompasses pre- and post-austerity.
Click to expand...

ok lets take a look back and check this out, you and me.

i posted #353 in which you quoted me, and you stated " Back to your drawing board"

my posting listed 4 links and using from the Cato link , i posted this "Government spending in the euro countries rose from 45.3% of GDP in 2007 to 49.5% in 2013, according to Eurostat, with particularly huge increases in Greece, France, Italy and Portugal.

now we shall take these 3 counties Greece, Italy and Portugal which you have settled on

and using my posting pic from 353 and here it is below

Screen Shot 2017-01-25 at 12.49.52 PM.jpg

according to my pic Greece government spending as per GDP is 46.8 in 2007 - 59.2 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Greece government spending per GDP is 47.1 in 2007 - 62.1 in 2013

greece Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 12.04.48 AM.jpg

both of these figures are very very close, and that cannot be denied


according to my pic Italy's government spending as per GDP is 46.8 in 2007 - 50.5 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Italy's government spending 46.8 in 2007 - 51.0 in 2013

italy Screen Shot 2017-01-25 at 11.56.33 PM.jpg

the 2007 figure is spot on correct while the other from my pic is close .5 of a point

again thats pretty much on the money


according to my pic Portugals government spending as per GDP is 44.5 in 2007 - 50.1 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Portugals government spending 44.5 in 2007 - 49.9 in 2013

port Screen Shot 2017-01-26 at 12.00.06 AM.jpg

the 2007 figure in spot on correct while the 2013 is very close .2 of a point

so for you to say i need to get " Back to your drawing board" shows you don't know what you are talking about and lost.

Greece Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Italy Government Spending to GDP | 1990-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Portugal Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Portugal Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
You did try to use this data:

67212991d1485365160-reverand-paul-gives-sermon-book-fiscal-conservatism-screen-shot-2017-01-25-10-25-18-am-jpg


To push this false narrative:

You simply lack the courage to admit both the weakness of your position and the error.
Click to expand...

time for you to look at post 392 so you and your friend are wrong and lost
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
ok lets take a look back and check this out, you and me.

i posted #353 in which you quoted me, and you stated " Back to your drawing board"

my posting listed 4 links and using from the Cato link , i posted this "Government spending in the euro countries rose from 45.3% of GDP in 2007 to 49.5% in 2013, according to Eurostat, with particularly huge increases in Greece, France, Italy and Portugal.

now we shall take these 3 counties Greece, Italy and Portugal which you have settled on

and using my posting pic from 353 and here it is below

View attachment 67213044

according to my pic Greece government spending as per GDP is 46.8 in 2007 - 59.2 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Greece government spending per GDP is 47.1 in 2007 - 62.1 in 2013

View attachment 67213046

both of these figures are very very close, and that cannot be denied


according to my pic Italy's government spending as per GDP is 46.8 in 2007 - 50.5 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Italy's government spending 46.8 in 2007 - 51.0 in 2013

View attachment 67213047

the 2007 figure is spot on correct while the other from my pic is close .5 of a point

again thats pretty much on the money


according to my pic Portugals government spending as per GDP is 44.5 in 2007 - 50.1 in 2013

now below is a chart from your web site and it shows Portugals government spending 44.5 in 2007 - 49.9 in 2013

View attachment 67213048

the 2007 figure in spot on correct while the 2013 is very close .2 of a point

so for you to say i need to get " Back to your drawing board" shows you don't know what you are talking about and lost.

Greece Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Italy Government Spending to GDP | 1990-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Portugal Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Portugal Government Spending to GDP | 1995-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar
Click to expand...

You seriously don't understand the problem with your premise?

You started this bit about the "myth of austerity," and your big evidence for the "myth" was this chart of govt. spending as a % of GDP. I have no problem with the data. What I have a problem with is that your premise is wrong. Austerity is no myth - those governments have been cutting spending over the past ten years. I showed you the data. That is austerity. The only reason you used your chart is because it deceptively looks like an increase in government spending, because it's measured as a percentage of a declining GDP. Saying that your version of things demonstrates a lack of austerity is akin to giving a starving person less and less food, but pointing out that, as a percentage of his declining body weight, he is getting more food.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You seriously don't understand the problem with your premise?

You started this bit about the "myth of austerity," and your big evidence for the "myth" was this chart of govt. spending as a % of GDP. I have no problem with the data. What I have a problem with is that your premise is wrong. Austerity is no myth - those governments have been cutting spending over the past ten years. I showed you the data. That is austerity. The only reason you used your chart is because it deceptively looks like an increase in government spending, because it's measured as a percentage of a declining GDP. Saying that your version of things demonstrates a lack of austerity is akin to giving a starving person less and less food, but pointing out that, as a percentage of his declining body weight, he is getting more food.
Click to expand...

OH i do, Cato was correct and you messed up in quoting post 353 trying to say the info was wrong and what i see you now doing is back tracking.

you don't want to admit you screwed up by challenging the the post, but now want to say "well i disagree with it",

lets remember you are the one said you could refute the posting

lets remember you are the one who called me a hack.

lets remember you are the one who said i didn't understand, .........yet it you running for the tall grass

lets remember it you would said my argument failed and you proved errors in it.......yet i used you web site

lets remember is you saying my postings showed "ignorance", yet using your web site the numbers were factual

for you to think you are so smart and have more knowledge on the subject, but your sense to become so critical and say many things as you did shows you have little control over your emotions and it got the better of you in your argument.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
OH i do, Cato was correct and you messed up in quoting post 353 trying to say the info was wrong and what i see you now doing is back tracking.

you don't want to admit you screwed up by challenging the the post, but now want to say "well i disagree with it",

lets remember you are the one said you could refute the posting

lets remember you are the one who called me a hack.

lets remember you are the one who said i didn't understand, .........yet it you running for the tall grass

lets remember it you would said my argument failed and you proved errors in it.......yet i used you web site

lets remember is you saying my postings showed "ignorance", yet using your web site the numbers were factual

for you to think you are so smart and have more knowledge on the subject, but your sense to become so critical and say many things as you did shows you have little control over your emotions and it got the better of you in your argument.
Click to expand...

You don't even understand where you're wrong.

There is no sense arguing further.

John didn't just disagree with you, you were wrong.
 
Critter7r said:
You don't even understand where you're wrong.

There is no sense arguing further.

John didn't just disagree with you, you were wrong.
Click to expand...

oh please, Cato's numbers were correct based off even his own web site, you guys are amazing because you believe yourself to be so knowledgeable and are not.

now your throwing in the towel because you don't know what to say further.
 
Master PO said:
oh please, Cato's numbers were correct based off even his own web site, you guys are amazing because you believe yourself to be so knowledgeable and are not.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing the raw numbers. The dispute is your misinterpretation of those numbers, and lack of context.
 
Incisor said:
No one is disputing the raw numbers. The dispute is your misinterpretation of those numbers, and lack of context.
Click to expand...

:lamo, you, the guy who quoted me and changed the text of my quote and when called on it, lied, and stated i delated the post, even though the post exist which you quoted it from.

you guys give each other likes and pat each other on the backs all you want, i have already heard, read.... a lie, emotional responses to my postings directed at me personally and the inability of providing any proof [links] that proves Cato wrong.

you guys are amazing at the false pretenses you try to promote
 
Master PO said:
oh please, Cato's numbers were correct based off even his own web site, you guys are amazing because you believe yourself to be so knowledgeable and are not.

now your throwing in the towel because you don't know what to say further.
Click to expand...

You're deflecting because your premise was exposed as ridiculous. Now you switch over to arguing that I thought the raw data was wrong? Where did I say that? I said you were wrong, and their conclusion was wrong, and I explained why.

Now, either defend your original losing argument or admit defeat like a man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom