«

»

Obama Admin comedy gold..

That comes from Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack when he equates food stamps with a stimulus:

Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times

Someone should ask this moron how much every dollar government took away from people so it could then turn around and give probably less than 50 cents on the dollar – cost of government employees processing that money – in food stamps to people actually ended up costing us. I bet you that when all is said and done the number is big time negative. But why allow those facts to crowd/beclown the narrative?

I have to laugh, because otherwise the option is to cry at the stupidity of these people. Think anyone in the LSM will point out Vilsack is an economic illiterat douche? Not holding my breath.

UDPATE: In the comments below CM keeps pretending that since I only pointed out great economists had already disproved this broken window fallacy, that it was all nonsense, but didn’t actually write a dissertation about the proof myself, that there are no facts to substantiate my point that this is all bogus, so I figired I would show him some facts about how government job creating usually works out, and then do it while focusing on his enviro-fetish. Take a look at another great example of how well< a href="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127844048.html" target="_new">government job creation works out in the real world:

Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare. McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

But more than a year later, Seattle’s numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable. “The jobs haven’t surfaced yet,” said Michael Woo, director of Got Green, a Seattle community organizing group focused on the environment and social justice.

“It’s been a very slow and tedious process. It’s almost painful, the number of meetings people have gone to. Those are the people who got jobs. There’s been no real investment for the broader public.”

The only people surprised by this result are the big government believers in the whole “broken window economic model” which is at the center of Vilsack’s idiotic claim that food stamps programs create jobs. Any job government creates will cost too much, produce too little, if any, in value, and basically waste resources that would have better been utilized elsewhere. In fact, I would not be surprised that if studied a guy wasting $1 million dollars whoring, drinking, and drugging for a weekend will produce more real wealth and economic growth/stimulus than government getting its hands on that money and doing whatever with it.

BTW, this isn’t the only horror story about government money going to create green jobs going awry. There is that Solar energy company in MA that got a ton of stimulus money and which Obama talked so much about when selling this idiotic patronage bill that just recently went belly up. Of course, the political and academic class that believe in this green nonsense, blamed capitalism for yet another pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking dumb idea not working.

If you really want to see government at work, look at the USPS for your example.

92 comments

No ping yet

  1. sahrab says:

    Alex

    You just dont understand, those poor unfortunates are entitled to the food stamps(per CM) any money they generate by using them is a plus

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Dave D says:

    By this logic, we should tax everyone at a high, say 70% rate, give it back to the people and we will double GNP! Perpetual machine, anyone?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  3. CM says:

    Inherently if money that is otherwise not doing anything (because the mega-wealthy aren’t doing anything with it) is moving through the economy, that’s a ‘stimulus’. Whether you think it’s fair or not is irrelevant.

    But why allow those facts to crowd/beclown the narrative?

    Where are these facts you speak of?

    I bet you that when all is said and done the number is big time negative.

    Is that it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    I am not even going to bother answering your idiocy CM, other than to point out that rich people money ONLY starts doing nothing when these people have to hide it from a confiscatory and abusive government, because rich people otherwise always are looking for opportunities to get richer – it’s why they are rich to begin with, they don’t sit on their money – but let me take a page out of your book and simply ask you a question I will be waiting with baited breath for you to answer: where the fuck did Vilsack get his numbers?

    My guess is he pulled them out of his ass, just like the rest of the bullshit coming from these people. As I said: go read some Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, both incredibly smart economists, that have thoroughly debunked the stupid idea that government does anything other than act like a drag on the economy. The fact that you are defending not just a ridiculous lie by some asshole government official, but then demanding other people play your stupid gotcha game and present a disertation you will just ignore anyway, just makes me pitty you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. AlexInCT says:

    Fuck, why stop at 70%? Do what the Soviets, North Koreans, Cubans, and every other hard core communists have done in the not so distant past, and confiscate 100% With the logic this idiot Vilsack is spouting about how government welfare creates jobs, and people like CM going along and defending it because he is jealous other people have money and he doesn’t, what could go wrong? Instant 100% employment and utopia I bet. After all,the more government controls the economy, the better things will be, right?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  6. hist_ed says:

    Uhhh, CM, didn’t we talk about this a little while ago? Mostly, the rich don’t put their money into their matresses or in a hole in their back yards. They invest it. Even if they don’t invest it they stick it in the bank which gives the bank more money to lend out to others. Excpet, sometimes, they buy government bonds with it. Then the private sector doesn’t get to use the rich guys’ dough, the government does.

    Oh and sometimes, the government so fucks up the business environment, that the rich do essentially stick it in the matresses by buying lots of gold and other commodities.

    So the only time that the rich are hoardind their money is when the government is really fucking things up. Like now. The problem isn’t the rich; it’s the government.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    The problem is opportunity cost. Any dollar spent is borrowed from someone who might have lent it to a business. When money is spent, the economic multiplier happens anyway. The question is, are we spending it on something that benefits society and improves our lives? Or are we spending it on people sitting around?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    ….rich people money ONLY starts doing nothing when these people have to hide it from a confiscatory and abusive government, because rich people otherwise always are looking for opportunities to get richer – it’s why they are rich to begin with, they don’t sit on their money

    Confiscatory and abusive government is only ONE reason to store wealth instead of spending it.

    ….but let me take a page out of your book and simply ask you a question I will be waiting with baited breath for you to answer: where the fuck did Vilsack get his numbers?

    I never questioned his numbers, or relied on them, so I’ve no idea what you’re talking about with your “page out of your book nonsense”.

    As I said: go read some Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, both incredibly smart economists, that have thoroughly debunked the stupid idea that government does anything other than act like a drag on the economy

    And there are plenty of economists who conclude the opposite. You just happen to ignore (or abuse) them because you don’t agree with them. No surprise there.

    The fact that you are defending not just a ridiculous lie by some asshole government official, but then demanding other people play your stupid gotcha game and present a disertation you will just ignore anyway, just makes me pitty you.

    Where did I defend a lie? Where did I request a disertation? WTF are you talking about?
    You clearly stated that you’d set down some facts. I’m simply pointing out that you haven’t. You even called it a ‘bet’.
    Again, where are these ‘facts’ you speak of?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  9. CM says:

    Uhhh, CM, didn’t we talk about this a little while ago?

    Yeah I’m well aware of the one-trick-pony binary narrative. But, uhhhh, Alex claimed he had facts.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

      
  10. CM says:

    I’m not defending anything. I’m asking for the facts you claim to have.

    because he is jealous other people have money and he doesn’t

    I got plenty. The jealousy thing is just one part of that ideological narrative you’re stuck in, going around and around.

    Really, it’s like you’re quoting a first year political theory textbook most of the time. Does it really never occur to you to factor in any sort of reality? You know, instead of just making shit up all the time?

    Hot! Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

      
  11. CM says:

    That’s the key question indeed. If they weren’t actually going to lend it to a business then the comparison is flawed. I’d like to see some actual research. Emperical data to back this all up. We can’t have perfect information because we can’t be entirely sure of the opportunity cost, so I’ll settle for the best we can get.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    Confiscatory and abusive government is only ONE reason to store wealth instead of spending it.

    Bullshit. It is the only reason to store money instead of INVESTING IT which is what creates jobs. Spending it doesn’t do anything close to what investing it does when ti comes to permanent job creation. But since you bring it up. Give me another reason you think they “hoard” their money. I am going to enjoy this.

    I never questioned his numbers, or relied on them, so I’ve no idea what you’re talking about with your “page out of your book nonsense”.

    Now you are admitting your tactic to shift focus when the conversation doesn’t go your way is nonsense? There is hope for you I guess. As for your claim not to have relied on his numbers, your implication that my pointing out they where absurd and that he ignored economic reality, clearly challenged my takedown of his, which WAS a defense of the nonsense he was spouting. Or is your point that you believe what he said even though you do not believe his numbers, but you certainly will not believe me pointing out he is spouting nonsense unless I do an academic dissertation for you? Contort yourself away pretending you where not defending this nonsense by attacking me for pointing out it was nonsense.

    And there are plenty of economists who conclude the opposite. You just happen to ignore (or abuse) them because you don’t agree with them. No surprise there.

    I bet “Spaced Invaders Krugman is one of them”. And I don’t just happen to ignore them. I happen to understand that what they are saying is nonsense. I will again pose this question to you. If by this idiotic logic that money taken out of the economy, in any form by government, creates jobs, why don’t they just take all of it and give us 100% unemployment? Why don’t we encourage people to riot, steal, and destroy things? After all, this then creates jobs fixing it all too. The broken window economic theory – which is what Vilsack was using to claim this shit created jobs – is a disastrously stupid one, and any economist that claims that it is not, is an idiot.

    Where did I defend a lie? Where did I request a disertation? WTF are you talking about?

    Are you conveniently ignoring every debate we have had in the past? And you are defending Vilsack’s lie that welfare is a job creator. It is not just a lie; it is a risible and laughable attempt to confound the economic reality that government siphons wealth from the productive sector and then redistributes it thus creating the need for more services as those that get the money spend it. If government had kept its paws out of other people’s pockets unemployment wouldn’t be at the ridiculously high numbers we have now, and most of these people would have jobs and the means to buy their own things.

    You clearly stated that you’d set down some facts.

    I told you to go read Williams and Sullivan which already indubitably and effectively took the whole broken window economic model of the big government types apart, and your response was that plenty of other economists disagree. Of course you then did exactly what you want to pretend I did – not give any facts – that would back that up. How about you name me a couple of those economists so I can laugh at them for being that stupid?

    I’m simply pointing out that you haven’t.

    Ah, yes. I need to write the dissertation you claim you never demand, not just tell you that other much more knowledgeable people already have and to go read them. Whatever.

    You even called it a ‘bet’.

    And I stand by that bet. Because others – Sullivan and Williams amongst them – already made that exact same bet and won it.

    Again, where are these ‘facts’ you speak of?

    Again, here you are wasting everyone’s time with your stupid shit tactic of pretending you are just asking a question when what you are doing is beyond obvious. Then you feel insulted when people point out you are being an ass.

    Let me type s-lo-w-l-y for you: read Williams and Sullivan, both extensively published and easy to google articles dealing with the subject, and you will see how they completely and utterly dismember this fallacy of an idea that the “broken window economic model” Bastiat came up with and that these big government types live by, has any kind of merit. Here it is in a gist:

    “Bastiat wrote a parable about this that has become known as the “Broken Window Fallacy.” A shopkeeper’s window is broken by a vandal. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the man, but pretty soon, the people start to suggest the boy wasn’t guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

    After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth. Those are the seen effects of the broken window.

    What’s unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The broken window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier, who now has a job, to the tailor, who doesn’t. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper’s wealth.

    Explicitly, had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now, he has just a window.”

    Let that sink into your thick skull.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. AlexInCT says:

    I’m not defending anything. I’m asking for the facts you claim to have.

    No you are not. You are now flailing madly in an attempt to distract the conversation from the obvious fact that this idiot said something really stupid and you can’t defend it. It’s your usual tactic. As I said already above: the facts are easy to google, but you don’t give a shit about them. You just want to distract people from the point at hand.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  14. AlexInCT says:

    Oh get of your high horse. You don’t want to see any research at all. You are looking for a way to defend the indefensible, and your approach is to demand that those that point the problem out provide you with a dissertation you can then scan for anything else you can use to derail the argument. The research has been done ad nauseum. Go google it if you want it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  15. Dick Fitzwell says:

    I believe that the multiplier for government spending is always less than 1. In order for the government to spend $1it has to take that dollar from me plus the costs of the employees that it takes to administer the shelling out of that dollar. Government spending must always cost more than the actual dollar amount of the spending. And that’s not taking into account the opportunity cost that you mention.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Dick Fitzwell says:

    Since Alex mentioned Bastiat (whose writings admittedly take the wrinkle out of my shorts), I’d like to go on a small tangent and post a few of my favorite quotes from him.

    If you wish to prosper, let your customer prosper. When people have learned this lesson, everyone will seek his individual welfare in the general welfare. Then jealousies between man and man, city and city, province and province, nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world.

    As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

    The plans differ; the planners are all alike…

    Ok. So I’m a little gay for Bastiat. Sue me.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    Bullshit. It is the only reason to store money instead of INVESTING IT which is what creates jobs. Spending it doesn’t do anything close to what investing it does when ti comes to permanent job creation. But since you bring it up. Give me another reason you think they “hoard” their money. I am going to enjoy this.

    Recessions (when investment opportunities shrivel away) don’t JUST occur because of “confiscatory and abusive government”.
    Also, tax increases on the rich in the past haven’t tanked the economy.
    Your premise is void.

    Now you are admitting your tactic to shift focus when the conversation doesn’t go your way is nonsense?

    Tactic? No, I’m pointing out that you’re making shit up yet again.
    It’s pretty simple Alex. If you don’t want me to point that out, stop making shit up.
    Your tactic appears to be that when someone points out that you’re making shit up, you claim ‘tactic’.

    As for your claim not to have relied on his numbers, your implication that my pointing out they where absurd and that he ignored economic reality, clearly challenged my takedown of his, which WAS a defense of the nonsense he was spouting.

    What takedown? In order for it to be a takedown, you’d need to demonstrate that his numbers are flawed. You’ve done no such thing. It’s not for me to prove his numbers correct. YOU’RE the one who is claiming they are flawed (apparantly it’s a ‘fact’).

    Or is your point that you believe what he said even though you do not believe his numbers, but you certainly will not believe me pointing out he is spouting nonsense unless I do an academic dissertation for you?

    No academic dissertation required (now there is a tactic right there, throwing up your hands and screeching about how I require an entire academic dissertation when all I’m asking is for you to provide ANYTHING at all to support what you claim to be fact). Really, can you not see how absurd that comparison is? All it would take is just a few of those supporting facts you’re always so fond of talking about but never able to provide (or when you do they actually show something else).

    Contort yourself away pretending you where not defending this nonsense by attacking me for pointing out it was nonsense.

    Contort yourself away pretending I was doing something other than asking you to provide what you said you’ve provided, but patently haven’t.

    I will again pose this question to you. If by this idiotic logic that money taken out of the economy, in any form by government, creates jobs, why don’t they just take all of it and give us 100% unemployment? Why don’t we encourage people to riot, steal, and destroy things? After all, this then creates jobs fixing it all too.

    Who is claiming anything of the sort?
    Only a complete idiot would pretend that anyone would think that would work. Only a blind ideologue would even pose such a question.

    The broken window economic theory – which is what Vilsack was using to claim this shit created jobs – is a disastrously stupid one, and any economist that claims that it is not, is an idiot.

    That’s just meaningless. All you’re saying is “I don’t agree”. Well, that’s fine, but give us some evidence of why/how it doesn’t work, don’t just repeat your general opinion beause that’s what it says in a first-year economic textbook.

    Are you conveniently ignoring every debate we have had in the past?

    No, it happens over and over again. You claim opinion as fact. You don’t seem to know the difference. It’s fascinating.

    And you are defending Vilsack’s lie that welfare is a job creator. It is not just a lie; it is a risible and laughable attempt to confound the economic reality that government siphons wealth from the productive sector and then redistributes it thus creating the need for more services as those that get the money spend it. If government had kept its paws out of other people’s pockets unemployment wouldn’t be at the ridiculously high numbers we have now, and most of these people would have jobs and the means to buy their own things.

    You’re claiming what he said is a lie based on nothing but your opinion which is composed entirely of one ideological theory. There is no (or at least insufficient) evidence that if tax was lower unemployment would be lower. It MIGHT be the case, but many economic experts would disagree with you. I’d say most would disagree with you, because almost all economists take into account a variety of factors. You only ever seem to take into account a very narrow range of factors, and often just one.

    I told you to go read Williams and Sullivan which already indubitably and effectively took the whole broken window economic model of the big government types apart, and your response was that plenty of other economists disagree. Of course you then did exactly what you want to pretend I did – not give any facts – that would back that up. How about you name me a couple of those economists so I can laugh at them for being that stupid?

    1. You told me to go read some books AFTER you said you’d provided facts.
    2. Reading a book making one argument doesn’t prove anything.
    3. I never claimed to have facts here, whereas you pretended to be basing your narrative on facts when you didn’t have any.

    Ah, yes. I need to write the dissertation you claim you never demand,

    Never have, never will. That’s yet another of your dumb memes.

    not just tell you that other much more knowledgeable people already have and to go read them. Whatever.

    Or alternatively you could not claim facts that aren’t in evidence.

    Again, here you are wasting everyone’s time with your stupid shit tactic of pretending you are just asking a question when what you are doing is beyond obvious.

    And here you are, offended that someone has dared to question what you’ve written. On a discussion forum no less! How dare they?! And now you’re in that sad and desperate defensive state where you start being abusive in order to shut any discussion down.

    Explicitly, had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now, he has just a window.”

    Did he not have insurance? Surely if he didn’t have insurance it’s his own fault?
    Can you give me a real world example along these lines? Not just something made up with every aspect carefully controlled to make the point you want?

    My opinion is that, in general, money earnt and then spent by choice is going to be a better wealth-generator than tax revenue put back into the economy by the government. But not necessarily in dire economic times, when ensuring the bottom 20% or so are able to get through. When tax revenue is distributed, as close to 100% as you can get is put right back into the economy (and almost all of it in areas where the struggle is the hardest because people spend locally). Whereas if you reduce tax rates on the wealthy, no way they’ll spend even remotely all of it. They’ll likely save most of it, because there are few worthy investment opportunities.
    When focusing on this, how the dire economic situation occured isn’t entirely relevant. That’s not to say it isn’t relevant per se (of course it is). But it’s a different argument.

    Let that sink into your thick skull.

    I’m going to go with the “you’re clearly a sad little man” response here.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  18. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

      
  19. CM says:

    Oh get of your high horse. You don’t want to see any research at all. You are looking for a way to defend the indefensible, and your approach is to demand that those that point the problem out provide you with a dissertation you can then scan for anything else you can use to derail the argument. The research has been done ad nauseum. Go google it if you want it.

    If it’s fact then it will be able to withstand anything I can throw at it.

    I love how requesting something more than lectures consisting of pure economic theory and opinion over and over and over again is being on a ‘high horse’ though. That’s magic.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  20. CM says:

    I believe that the multiplier for government spending is always less than 1. In order for the government to spend $1it has to take that dollar from me plus the costs of the employees that it takes to administer the shelling out of that dollar. Government spending must always cost more than the actual dollar amount of the spending. And that’s not taking into account the opportunity cost that you mention.

    That’s assuming that 100% of government revenues are from taxes, and that you contribute to all those taxes.
    No argument about administration costs.
    The multiplier for government spending is also going to be largely dependent on what they are spending it on. As I said elsewhere in this thread, someone just scraping by is going to plunge 100% of it back into the economy. They’ll also spend almost of it locally, where there is likely to be a disproportionate number of people in a similar situation. There is also no lag involved, which is an important factor in a dire economic situation. A wealthy person keeping another $100 in his pocket doesn’t mean he’ll spend it at all, and if it does there is no saying what he’ll spend it on. If demand for his goods/services is low, he won’t hire more stafff or buy more machinery. If he does spend it, and it’s not going to be business related, then it’s probably going to be on a luxury good. In that case there is a much better chance that the money will flow out of the area.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. JimK says:

    For someone who demands links and facts – and at the same times spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing those who state assumptions as fact – you just did a whole lot of assuming and restating those assumptions as fact.

    Just saying. Not trying to start a fight, just pointing it out. You fell prey to the same thing you yell at Alex for doing. See how easy it is to state what you feel to be true as empirically true? And so, seeing that, maybe you could ease off the gas a little?

    That goes for you too Alex. You and CM hate each other and totally disagree. We all get it.
    JimK recently posted..You were supposed to sing or dance while the music was playingMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  22. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

      
  23. JimK says:

    Not claiming (or lecturing) that any of that is ‘fact’. Not even remotely. Can you really not see the difference?

    Honestly? No. You simply stated that this is how it works. You didn’t even preface it with a “this is how I believe it works” or a simple IMHO. You simply stated it like it was fact.

    Maybe you don’t see it when you do it, but I’m telling you, in all fairness, your statements weren’t presented as opinion any more than Alex’s usually are.

    Another key aspect is that I’m not pre-emptively calling anyone a fucking retarded shit-for-brains lying baby-eating moron simply for disagreeing.

    That is a totally fair point. One with which I agree.

    BUT.

    Often he’s not actually saying those things about YOU PERSONALLY, but you both take them personally and react as though he said them about you personally. And then he reacts, and you react, and we get 50 comments where you two are basically arguing about arguing. :)

    All I’m asking is that you realize when he’s being sort of “blog hyperbolic” about Democrats at large, and see how that is different from personally attacking you individually.

    I’d welcome a response, particularly if it can point out a flaw in what I’ve said.
    HUGE difference.

    Again…totally fair point. We’ll get there.
    JimK recently posted..You were supposed to sing or dance while the music was playingMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. hist_ed says:

    I believe that the multiplier for government spending is always less than 1. In order for the government to spend $1it has to take that dollar from me plus the costs of the employees that it takes to administer the shelling out of that dollar

    Ahh, but that employee is going to spend the money he is paid as well, right? Delve deeper . . .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    Honestly? No. You simply stated that this is how it works. You didn’t even preface it with a “this is how I believe it works” or a simple IMHO. You simply stated it like it was fact.

    Opinion presented as clear opinion is fine. Nobody can have an issue with that. I don’t expect everyone to preface everything they say. Did I give any indication that I wouldn’t accept anything other than that argument? I don’t see how I did.
    But explicitly claiming something as fact (which he did, and does constantly), or pre-emptively ending a discussion before it’s even started by abusing anyone who doesn’t agree (which he does in almost every post) – that’s just woeful. What does anyone get out of that? Honestly, what the hell is the point?

    Maybe you don’t see it when you do it, but I’m telling you, in all fairness, your statements weren’t presented as opinion any more than Alex’s usually are.

    I couldn’t disagree more. As above, Alex’s comments are almost always laced with (abusive) language which makes it clear that nobody who thinks anything differently should even think about disagreeing. And sometimes he explicitly has facts, when none are in evidence. I’d never claim something as a fact if I wasn’t able to back it up. Otherwise I’d look like an idiot when someone questions me.

    Often he’s not actually saying those things about YOU PERSONALLY, but you both take them personally and react as though he said them about you personally. And then he reacts, and you react, and we get 50 comments where you two are basically arguing about arguing. :)

    Ah but he sets it up every time so that anyone who disagrees with the premise, or the conclusion, or anything inbetween, is pre-emptively abused. I think it’s extremely disingenous to pretend that anyone that tries to take part in the discussion isn’t automatically dragged down in his abusive rambling nonsense.
    If you actually look at the threads, I don’t take the initial abuse personally. But one post from me and Alex turns the general abuse into personal abuse (“I am not even going to bother answering your idiocy CM”). Why? What the fuck is the point?
    Equating me and Alex on this is frankly ridiculous.

    All I’m asking is that you realize when he’s being sort of “blog hyperbolic” about Democrats at large, and see how that is different from personally attacking you individually.

    One almost always leads to the other. And when is he not “blog hyperbolic”? Everything, whether it’s in an opening post or a general thread post, is the same. He’s just hyperbolic in general. And if anyone (not that anyone else bothers) to point it out, or ask a question (on the basis that hell, he might be right, I better ask rather than just assume he’s wrong) he goes hyperbolic on personal abuse. What the fuck is the point? He’s worse than ILA (“I Love America”), who was the worst liberal at MW. Because he was liberal, he got absolutely slammed constantly.

    Honestly, can I ask the rest of you what you get out of it? I honestly don’t understand how it does anything other than constantly drag everything down to a childlike level. Alex keeps thinking he’s winning, when in fact everyone is losing.

    Again…totally fair point. We’ll get there.

    Thanks. But we definitely won’t if he keeps being enabled and his actions are equated to mine. ;-)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  26. Dick Fitzwell says:

    Are you saying that there is a multiplier greater than 1 when it comes to paying government employees? Their consumption begets more consumption and so on? If this is true wouldn’t it be better if more people worked for the government? I’m not sure that the theory of the fiscal multiplier is supposed to be applied in that way but I could be wrong.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Dick Fitzwell says:

    That’s assuming that 100% of government revenues are from taxes, and that you contribute to all those taxes.

    According to the CBO, 96% of the federal gov’t's revenue comes in the form of taxes. I’m not sure what the second half of your sentence is getting at. Is there anyone in the US who contributes to every tax that the gov’t imposes?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. AlexInCT says:

    Recessions (when investment opportunities shrivel away) don’t JUST occur because of “confiscatory and abusive government”.

    Where the fook did I say that it was the confiscatory policies of government that caused the recession CM? Do you lack reading comprehension or did you post this nonsense on purpose to avoid discussing the real issue?

    I have always blamed the recession on the real reason it happened: the collapse in the housing market and the economic dominoes that followed it. And that collapse was caused by the idiotic push by leftist ideologues and their unrealistic beliefs government can use force of will to change economic reality. That led to them setting up law after stupid law that forced lenders into giving money to people they should never have, backed up by the promise of bailouts, with tax payer money, when things went south, and of course not to be forgotten, then creation of a whole trading scheme to make the shit sandwich palatable. When things did go south they of course blamed Wall Street and not themselves

    Now, if your beef is with me pointing out that the use of confiscatory government policies that followed that recession are damaging, and are trying to make the case that confiscatory government policies don’t have an impact on recessions or cause another dip, then you are incorrect. Research the years between the 1929 stock market collapse and WWII, and you will get plenty of evidence that government meddling prolonged that recession.

    Also, tax increases on the rich in the past haven’t tanked the economy.

    You must have missed the Carter years, huh?

    Your premise is void.

    No CM, your head is.

    Tactic? No, I’m pointing out that you’re making shit up yet again.

    What did I make up? I am going to wait for that to be pointed out. Simply stating that I didn’t put in the dissertation you require, and then would have simply dismissed, but pointed out others had already debunked the stupid shit Vilsack’s premise is based on, as the reason for your disagreement isn’t going to cut it. Neither is your original attempt to cover your ass when I asked this before – that others actually believe the “broken window” economic model actually creates jobs – going to cut it.

    It’s pretty simple Alex. If you don’t want me to point that out, stop making shit up.

    I will ask again. What did I make up?

    Your tactic appears to be that when someone points out that you’re making shit up, you claim ‘tactic’.

    I will ask again: what did I make up?

    What takedown? In order for it to be a takedown, you’d need to demonstrate that his numbers are flawed. You’ve done no such thing. It’s not for me to prove his numbers correct. YOU’RE the one who is claiming they are flawed (apparantly it’s a ‘fact’).

    How do I take down numbers that are pulled out of his ass and a false claim that is based on an economic premises that has been proved to be flawed? It’s more of the same stupid they put out trying to claim that the trillion dollar patronage bill created oh so many jobs. Shouldn’t pointing out that the discredited premise he bases his claims on be enough? Or do I have to rehash the entire argument with people like you that refuse to accept the fact that Bastiat was a moron? Here are the facts: Bastiat’s premise is false. Vilsack’s premise is based on that. His numbers are made up and worse, they don’t take into account the economic impact of government first taking all that money out of the economy in the first place. If not, let him provide the source and disprove the fact there was a cost/impact when government toook the money in the frist place.

    No academic dissertation required (now there is a tactic right there, throwing up your hands and screeching about how I require an entire academic dissertation when all I’m asking is for you to provide ANYTHING at all to support what you claim to be fact). Really, can you not see how absurd that comparison is? All it would take is just a few of those supporting facts you’re always so fond of talking about but never able to provide (or when you do they actually show something else).

    Yeah sure. That from the guy that claims pointing out that the economic premise Vilsack used was discredited was tantamount to lying.

    Contort yourself away pretending I was doing something other than asking you to provide what you said you’ve provided, but patently haven’t.

    So your lack of understanding, be it on purpose or simply out of the usual ignorance that comes as a given for leftists on the subject of economics, of the fact that what Vilsack was quoting bullshit numbers and using a discredited economic “broken window” model, to pretend welfare creates jobs – other than those in government – while ignoring the impact of government taking the money out of the economy in the first place, makes me a liar? And then because I didn’t write the dissertation, which I will remind you, you claim you do not need, but seem hell bent on making the requirement bar to accuse me of being a liar, pointing that out? Check.

    You’re claiming what he said is a lie based on nothing but your opinion which is composed entirely of one ideological theory.

    Actually my opinion is based on the works of economic geniuses, a couple of which took the economic model Vilsack’s idiotic claim government welfare programs create private sector jobs is based on – the faulty “broken window” model crated by Bastiat – while ignoring the economic impact caused by government taking money out of the economy in the first place, is correct. If your beef with me was that I didn’t provide that proof immediately, you might have a case, but you didn’t accuse me of doing that, you accused me of lying. That you continue to ignore me pointing that Bastiat’s economic broken window model – what Vilsack bases his ludicrous claims on – is a fallacy, and has a far greater associated cost that all but cancels out any claims of a benefit, so you can keep pretending your idiotic accusation that I am lying has any merit, is quite telling CM.

    There is no (or at least insufficient) evidence that if tax was lower unemployment would be lower. > It MIGHT be the case, but many economic experts would disagree with you

    Who made that claim? Certainly not me. There are mountains of evidence however that high taxes negatively impact employment. Those that dispute that proof do so by avoiding the facts and reality they don’t like. If you must know, the reason employment numbers will not change right now and will continue to slant negatively is the outright hostility of the current people in charge of too much of our government – the class warfare bullshit and the anti Wall Street propaganda – towards earners and producers. And I will grant you that you are correct that even lower taxes are not going to make a dent in unemployment. As long as the wealth creators perceive that these idiots rigging the rules and picking & choosing winners & loser see them as nothing but a wallet to be raided and mean to screw them over at the first opportunity, we will see no change whatsoever. That is, unless they raise taxes. Then I am certain that we will see a spike in the number of jobs shed.

    As for experts disagreeing with me, I laugh at that. Those experts and their beliefs applied over the last 5 decades is why the employment situation, and for that matter the global economy, is as nasty as it is right now.

    I’d say most would disagree with you, because almost all economists take into account a variety of factors. You only ever seem to take into account a very narrow range of factors, and often just one.

    No, they disagree with me because they still think that the Keynesian idiocy can be made to work. Just like the idiots that think communism/socialsim can also work if the ‘right people” are in charge. They then invent a whole slew of reasons why what they believe should work, only to see none of that come about, as has been the case, then blame it on not understood factors. It doesn’t fool anyone that is grounded in the real world. That is why these economists that disagree with me are stumped that after 2 ½ years and over $5.3 trillion of deficit spending, through money printing and massive borrowing, all sorts of attempts of government inducements, regulations, and wealth transfer schemes billed as economic stimulus attempts, and a campaign of pep talks by the LSM, we are worse off.

    And now these experts that disagree with me and hold so much sway with you are saying that their greatest and best has failed because they where simply not more ambitious in their borrowing, spending, confiscation, and wealth redistribution schemes. When will there be enough proof that this shit doesn’t work to convince people like you that these economic experts that believe this nonsense are wrong, huh CM? Don’t bother, I know the answer is never. It would mean you have to give up your ideology.

    1. You told me to go read some books AFTER you said you’d provided facts.

    How long have you been reading my posts here? Are you telling me that I have never argued the fact that government can not create jobs or wealth, but that it basically destroys both? Do I have to rehash that in every post I make for you to say I have provide facts?

    2. Reading a book making one argument doesn’t prove anything.

    Especially when that argument destroys some of the fundamental beliefs of the ideology that defines you, so horribly, I bet.

    3. I never claimed to have facts here, whereas you pretended to be basing your narrative on facts when you didn’t have any.

    No CM, you accused me of lying when I pointed out Vilsack was making up nonsense, continue to pretend that I have never discussed the fallacy of this “government creates a bigger positive impact with government spending than the negative impact it causes when it takes money from the private sector” nonsense, now use the argument that economists that have continue to get it wrong disagree with the facts when I did rehash them for you, and now are trying to wiggle out of my request that since you think what I said was a lie that you defend Vilsack’s numbers and claim, with that copout.

    And here you are, offended that someone has dared to question what you’ve written.

    I am not offended that you, or for that matter anyone else, questions what I write. In fact I welcome that, because that’s how you do discussions. What offended me was you accusing me of lying when I pointed out Vilsack was pulling shit out of his ass, and then by claiming I was lying because I didn’t provide the dissertation you require.

    On a discussion forum no less! How dare they?! And now you’re in that sad and desperate defensive state where you start being abusive in order to shut any discussion down.

    Actually, I am having a great time showing anyone else that will read it how you work. And I seem to not be alone considering you constantly get called on it by others. Case in point, your response to the Bastiat’s window fallacy example, which I will now address.

    Did he not have insurance? Surely if he didn’t have insurance it’s his own fault?

    So your premise is that insurance would have mitigated the loss? Do you really think this wasn’t also addressed by Williams in his book? Are you liberals so stupid that you think insurance companies paying for the destruction suddenly obviate the fact that the money comes from somewhere else? Do you understand how insurance works? I am guessing because you are claiming having insurance basically insulates the guy whose window was broken from the cost, that you have no clue.

    Where does the insurance company get the money to pay for the window from, CM? Let me tell you: it gets it from premiums it collects on those that are participating in the plan. It means tests how much it will cost them annualy to pay out claims and then, based on individual risk knowledge, charge the people participating at a minimum enough to collect that much money. When they have to pay for more broken windows they change their models and also raise prizes. Those raises happen to primarily come for those filing claims. Ever get in a car accident then file for a claim? What happened to your premiums? That shop keeper in my example will now be paying a lot more in insurance, so will others BTW, so in the end we STILL end up with money that could have generated other wealth by being spent elsewhere, now being taken to cover the broken window. Hence the fact that the broken window economic model is a fail.

    Can you give me a real world example along these lines? Not just something made up with every aspect carefully controlled to make the point you want?

    Why would I bother? You didn’t even realize that having insurance and filing for it would basically mean you still incurred the cost. BTW, the real world example IS government taking money from the private sector to do things it claims benefit the private sector. That claim by Vilsack that welfare spending creates jobs is a specific example of the idiocy at work. Compared to the damage that taking the money out of the economy did in the first place, any benefits gained by then redistributing it – after a hefty portion is basically burned simply paying for the chain of people working in government – are always going to come up short. That’s the point!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. AlexInCT says:

    That goes for you too Alex. You and CM hate each other and totally disagree. We all get it.

    Would it surprise you if I told you I might not like him, but certainly do not hate him? I might hate his ideology and what it has done, but I do not hate him. The list of people I hate is very small, and they desrve hate. Frankly i oft feel sorry for CM. life usually is much harsher on people that believe what he does.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    The other 4% are fees that might as well considered to be taxes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. CM says:

    Would it surprise you if I told you I might not like him, but certainly do not hate him? I might hate his ideology and what it has done, but I do not hate him. The list of people I hate is very small, and they desrve hate.

    I don’t hate you either. In fact I’m struggling to think of anyone that woud deserve hate.
    My ideology hasn’t ‘done’ anything as I don’t have one. Ideology is retarded.

    Frankly i oft feel sorry for CM. life usually is much harsher on people that believe what he does.

    That can be simply explained by the fact that most of what you think I believe you’ve simply made up. Your huge response above is a litany of made-up-shit.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    Where the fook did I say that it was the confiscatory policies of government that caused the recession CM? Do you lack reading comprehension or did you post this nonsense on purpose to avoid discussing the real issue?

    Alex, you claimed that “rich people money ONLY starts doing nothing when these people have to hide it from a confiscatory and abusive“. I’m pointing out that savings increase when recession hits because investment opportunities die off. The recession itself is reason enough for rich people to stop investing. Whether the government is being seen to be engaged in “confiscatory policies” (which is subjective anyway) is largely irrelevant. If there are no investment opportunities which meet the required risk threshold, an investor will just keep hold of their money.

    I have always blamed the recession on the real reason it happened: the collapse in the housing market and the economic dominoes that followed it……

    Unsustainable western-world private debt is much more than about US law forcing lenders to give people money that should never have. The entire system is set up to encourage as much private debt as possible. You can’t just start blaming one cherry-picked issue because it conveniently suits your ideology. So I don’t buy your narrow premise.

    Now, if your beef is with me pointing out that the use of confiscatory government policies that followed that recession are damaging, and are trying to make the case that confiscatory government policies don’t have an impact on recessions or cause another dip, then you are incorrect.

    My “beef” is what I posted originally – you’ve claimed facts not in evidence. You are inferring that the figures provided are wrong, but not shown any evidence that they are wrong. You’re claiming the policy is idiotic but have not pointed out a better way to keep money flowing through the economy during dire economic times (that is the aim, as Vilsack said: “It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times”). What is a better way? If you’re going to be so incredibly critical (you couldn’t possible be more critical) then you’ve surely got to have a sure-fire proven alternative. What is it?

    You must have missed the Carter years, huh?

    Born in 1974 so too young to remember it.
    But what specifically are you referring to?

    Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

    Conversely:

    Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

    I will ask again. What did I make up?

    Dude, you are the one claiming his numbers are wrong and accusing him of lying (and calling him “economic illiterat douche” – I assume your spelling was meant to be ironic?). You’re accusing me of defending his lie. I haven’t accused anyone of lying, or being anything. I’ve not defended a lie. I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate how he’s lying (if you’re so sure then you obviously have some evidence).

    And yet you then try to turn it around by requesting that I should be the one to produce his analysis (“where the fuck did Vilsack get his numbers?). And then you accuse me of using a ‘tactic’ and ‘defending a lie’.

    WTF? At this point you should be simply admitting that you’re guessing that his numbers are wrong. But as that is going to make your abusive criticism seem ridiculous, so I can understand why that’s not going to happen. So now you’re left making shit up and attacking others. It’s all very classy Alex. The weird part is that you don’t seem to realise how transparent it all is.

    How do I take down numbers that are pulled out of his ass and a false claim that is based on an economic premises that has been proved to be flawed?

    So was it a ‘takedown’ as you claimed, or was it not? Make your mind up.
    How do you know he pulled the figures out of his ass?

    Here are the facts: Bastiat’s premise is false. Vilsack’s premise is based on that. His numbers are made up and worse, they don’t take into account the economic impact of government first taking all that money out of the economy in the first place. If not, let him provide the source and disprove the fact there was a cost/impact when government toook the money in the frist place.

    Sorry, that’s all just your opinion. I can claim that it’s a fact that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn’t automatically turn it into a fact.
    You’re the one making the claims, it’s up to you to back them up when required. If you can’t then don’t make such bold claims.

    That from the guy that claims pointing out that the economic premise Vilsack used was discredited was tantamount to lying.

    Now why would you just make up another lie? I claimed no such thing. What is the point of making up blatant one lie after another? Is it because nobody else here can be bothered calling you on them so you’ve grown accustomed to doing it?

    So your lack of understanding, be it on purpose or simply out of the usual ignorance that comes as a given for leftists on the subject of economics, of the fact that what Vilsack was quoting bullshit numbers….

    Show me how/why is numbers are made up.

    …using a discredited economic “broken window” model, to pretend welfare creates jobs – other than those in government – while ignoring the impact of government taking the money out of the economy in the first place, makes me a liar?

    1. Never called you a liar. I said you were making shit up by claiming that I was defending a “ridiculous lie”.

    2. Look at the video in your link again. The question is about relief for people in poverty (not about job growth specifically). The first part of his answer is about job growth. HOWEVER he then says “but” (which is missing in the transcript for some reason) and answers the actual question: “I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times”. Nowhere does he claim that food stamps create jobs. So your claim is wrong.

    …but seem hell bent on making the requirement bar to accuse me of being a liar, pointing that out? Check.

    Just give us some data. Shouldn’t be that hard, especially as you already know for a ‘fact’ that he’s made up the figures.

    Actually my opinion is based on the works of economic geniuses, a couple of which took the economic model Vilsack’s idiotic claim government welfare programs create private sector jobs is based

    Well it’s good to see you finally admit that this is all just your opinion, and not fact.
    But again, where does Vilsack claim that “government welfare programs create private sector jobs”?

    If your beef with me was that I didn’t provide that proof immediately, you might have a case

    Wow, you mean we didn’t need to do this whole dance. Why couldn’t you just admit that initially?

    but you didn’t accuse me of doing that, you accused me of lying.

    You said you had facts. You didn’t. I simply pointed that out. You now admit it. You claimed I was defending a lie. First of all you haven’t even come close to proving it a lie, and second I wasn’t defending it.

    Actually, I am having a great time showing anyone else that will read it how you work.

    You’re a true masochist.

    And I seem to not be alone considering you constantly get called on it by others.

    Most of it is clearly just meaningless playground-level piling-on. Some people love lining up behind the bully and poking out their tongue. Whatever.

    As for the insurance thing, you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. My point was that we can all construct little tales which are carefully tailored to suit the outcome we want.

    Why would I bother? You didn’t even realize that having insurance and filing for it would basically mean you still incurred the cost.

    Well personally I wouldn’t as I have house/contents insurance which allows for certain claims (and up to a maximum claim) without affecting the premium.

    BTW, the real world example IS government taking money from the private sector to do things it claims benefit the private sector. That claim by Vilsack that welfare spending creates jobs is a specific example of the idiocy at work.

    Can you please quote that part of his claim?

    Compared to the damage that taking the money out of the economy did in the first place, any benefits gained by then redistributing it – after a hefty portion is basically burned simply paying for the chain of people working in government – are always going to come up short. That’s the point!

    I think you’ve missed the point of what he actually said entirely, which is about getting money flowing through the economy. Which is part of the larger equation, which also includes trying to get job growth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. richtaylor365 says:

    Honestly, can I ask the rest of you what you get out of it? I honestly don’t understand how it does anything other than constantly drag everything down to a childlike level. Alex keeps thinking he’s winning, when in fact everyone is losing.

    From someone who agrees with Alex most of the time on the issues, and with you, sometimes, but not as much, I do find some of these exchanges tedious. I respect that you do not “respond in kind” because the ad hominems and personal attacks are pointless.

    Part of the problem is that there is a history. When he writes a post and you respond, it’s natural to think ,”Here he goes again, busting my balls”, while discounting the merit of the comment. More work needs to be done in that area.

    For my one self, I don’t think you are an extreme liberal, but you are more liberal then me and most here so you get tagged with it, that’s life. But, and I’ve said this before, I appreciate the moderates here because it offers some perspective and there have been times where my preconceived notions on an issue was rocked a bit, requiring some more reflection or research, from one of your responses, so there you go.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    More work needs to be done in that area.

    What can I do differently? I requested the facts that were mentioned and in direct response I get told that I’m an idiot, that I’m defending a ridiculous lie, and that I’m deserving of pity. WTF? On what planet does any of that make sense. It sure isn’t Earth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Section8 says:

    Facts? You mean like where is/was Obama’s grand plan facts? I ask Kimpost for details and he crys conspiracy theory!!!!!!!. I went back to check, I saw you chimed in too with insults, where’s the plan? WTF on what planet does any of that make sense. You two are something else.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Kimpost says:

    Someone’s in a mood. Granted, I almost never buy a conspiracy theory. The few times I do, it’s because I’m overwhelmed by actual evidence. Short of that, I generally find them to be insulting. I understand that others have no problems picturing evil politicians having people killed for gun grabbing purposes or what not, but you’ll just have to accept that I’m not one of them…

    That aside, I don’t believe I criticized you on that note here. I just found the argument that Obama didn’t have a plan of his own, to be political more than it was substantive. I don’t much care whether he was throwing personal plans out there left, right and center, or if he preferred to come up with a plan at the negotiating table. The actual plan or rather the finished deal was central, in my mind.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. Poosh says:

    … … um

    what’s a food stamp?
    Poosh recently posted..Media Lie: Norway Shooter was a ChristianMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38.   
  39. Section8 says:

    Where’s the plan?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Second half of sentence: just the issue that if the Govt spends $1 it doesn’t necessarily take $1 from you. It may take 90c from you and $1.10 from someone else. Depends on what taxes you pay and how much. And how you look at it.

    Fees and charges aren’t taxes if they are user-pay charges that would otherwise have to be subsidised by taxes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. CM says:

    Section8, I’m sure you’re aware that you’re being obtuse.

    I went back to check, I saw you chimed in too with insults,

    Which thread was it? I’d like to check myself.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. JimK says:

    Just a tip: more than 5 links gets you flagged as spam, hence the delay in the comment posting. I had to pick a number…5 seemed like as good as any.
    JimK recently posted..You were supposed to sing or dance while the music was playingMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. Section8 says:

    That aside, I don’t believe I criticized you on that note here.

    Ok, fair enough, I did not see this, I thought you were accusing me again, and I got the impression last time you thought I was making it a conspiracy theory. As far as that post, it was clear he did not want to give any specifics, his press secretary didn’t want to give specifics when asked, so I gave a couple of possibilities as this blog is about discussion.
    I see no issue with posting my assumptions of what could be if left to assume, which Obama left plenty to assume. I posted two possible scenarios, and I’m sure there could be others. One was he had no plan, and the other was there was no way in hell it would pass, so why stick your neck out, which is what I believed happened. Like any true politician though it never hurts to play it to the public the best you can. I was willing to negotiate, but those meanies… In the mean time not one Democrat was willing to run with any specifics and bring it to the floor for a vote much less discussed.For something so grand, it seemed to be swept under the rug pretty well.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. Section8 says:

    Something about baltazar (sp) and his mommy when he as asking for the plan. The threads are here, it wasn’t that long ago, find it yourself, and find Obama’s plan too while you’re at it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Ah ok thanks for the headsup. Good idea.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. CM says:

    Something about baltazar (sp) and his mommy when he as asking for the plan. The threads are here, it wasn’t that long ago, find it yourself, and find Obama’s plan too while you’re at it.

    Yeah little bit of context required there Section8. I was responding to Balthazar insulting me completely out of the blue (I hadn’t even posted in the fucking thread for god’s sake), in amongst his childish name-calling:

    B:

    So your fucking clueless as to what their plan was too Eh Kimpost?

    Just like Obama, he was clueless too, just spouted off some inane comments about how HE has a GRAND PLAN. And the mean old Reps are tearing him down and wont let him persevere.

    That comment is worthy of CM WTG Kompost

    K:

    Kompost.
    Really? Wow… :)

    Me:

    Balthazar’s mommy clearly didn’t give him a kiss before school this morning.

    http://right-thinking.com/2011/08/05/downgraded/

    So it wasn’t “insults”, it was a fairly mild and silly response to an unprovoked trolling insult in the middle of childish name-calling.
    Bit different from how you remember it, or at least are portraying it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. Poosh says:

    Ah, so it’s a benefit, an intelligent and fair one.

    All benefits, technically are ‘stimulus’, but the fallacy is thinking a stimulus works in the long run. The bang for your buck is a deception or fallacy if you like. All those food producers are just getting a smaller fraction of the money they were taxed back to them – you might as well have never taxed them in the first place. Same logic with government paid jobs providing stimulus. They appear on the surface to be stimulating, but all private-sector workers are merely “getting their money back”, or rather, a small amount of it back. Well, I’ve made a product, got taxed for selling it. Some of that tax went on some dude’s benefit which he used to buy my product and woah hold on a second …

    By definition a benefit cannot generate wealth. You cannot take £1 from the private sector, run it through a government program (which itself requires the creation of government jobs, and bureaucracy) and then claim the economy is getting £1.78 back. That is literally impossible. It’s spin.

    But a foodstamp sounds like something that is acceptable and that most people would not mind being taxed for.
    Poosh recently posted..Media Lie: Norway Shooter was a ChristianMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Poosh says:

    This will do.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. CM says:

    All benefits, technically are ‘stimulus’, but the fallacy is thinking a stimulus works in the long run.

    Do you mean if they are continued in the long run, or are you talking about how the benefits/costs flow from a single initial transaction? I assume the later, as the point is that they are short-term, to keep people from starving and to get money flowing (it doesn’t flow when people starve or rely on foodbanks).

    We need to find out where Vilsack’s $1.84 comes from and what it actually means and how it was determined. Otherwise we’re just pretending and speculating. But yeah the concept of getting money flowing where it probably wouldn’t otherwise makes sense and is clearly widely agreed upon.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. CM says:

    From your link Poosh:

    So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says here, and…..

    As I noted already in this thread, he doesn’t actually say that foodstamps (the SNAP program) create jobs. He just says its an economic stimulus. Watch the video and listen to the question and then listen to the answer.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Poosh says:

    Actually, in my brain anyway, the notion of ‘keeping money flowing’ isn’t smart either. I am guessing, according to my brain, that keeping money secure and spending it at a later date, is also important for an ecconomy.

    There are no economical benefits from an “initial transaction caused by a benefit” – but within a country that has a surplus, equilibrium can be achieved. Generally people on benefits will only spend their benefits at multinational corporations anyway (as they charge less). Starving people – in this sense, and assuming they are of limited use and of limited intelligence – do not have a negative affect on the economy. I don’t know what a foodbank is but in my head it’s a place where you store your food, like a bank for squirrels’ acorns. Or a giant fridge.

    I think a country should use a surplus to feed the hungry etc. Or even borrow – within reason – to feed the hungry. Tax revenues should be used to feed the hungry and poor, on the assumption that there are jobs to be filled, and that they are searching for work.

    Personally, I think government can personally create basic food stuffs using criminal labour; this food can be used to feed both criminals and the poor. Certain fruits and nuts, etc.

    Vilsack’s $1.84 claim refers, I am guessing, to the estimate costs of the food purchased with food stamps ??? If he means literally “generating wealth to grow the economy”, a benefit LITERALLY cannot do that. It gets even worse if a benefit is spent on a product that filters money in some fashion to another country’s economy.
    Poosh recently posted..Media Lie: Norway Shooter was a ChristianMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  52. Section8 says:

    Ok, you’re right (as much as it pains me) he did throw you into it. What provoked him into it? Kimpost’s

    *sob* *whine* *snivel*

    when asking for facts? Or are you two immune to such childish provocation or at least blinded to it when you guys do it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. CM says:

    Actually, in my brain anyway, the notion of ‘keeping money flowing’ isn’t smart either. I am guessing, according to my brain, that keeping money secure and spending it at a later date, is also important for an ecconomy.

    Savings are no doubt important to an economy per se, but surely not as important as keeping people from starving and keeping as many businesses alive as possible during dire economic times. Money flowing around does that.

    There are no economical benefits from an “initial transaction caused by a benefit”.

    Why not?

    Generally people on benefits will only spend their benefits at multinational corporations anyway (as they charge less).

    The key is that they’re spending on essentials. Not luxury goods. They’ll spend all of it, all of it locally, and all of it almost immediately. Yep, some of it will eventually make it’s way back to some multinationals, but they are either multi-nationals in the local area (like a supermarket) or they’re buying a product made by a multinational somewhere else. Either way, the money is flowing locally to start with.

    Starving people – in this sense, and assuming they are of limited use and of limited intelligence – do not have a negative affect on the economy.

    Not really sure how to tackle that. What’s the deal with assuming that people who are struggling to feed their family during an economic crists are “of limited use and intelligence”? What do you mean “they do not have a negative affect on the economy”? It’s not really about any of that.

    I don’t know what a foodbank is but in my head it’s a place where you store your food, like a bank for squirrels’ acorns. Or a giant fridge

    You’re serious? You really don’t know what foodstamps are or a food bank is?

    Vilsack’s $1.84 claim refers, I am guessing, to the estimate costs of the food purchased with food stamps ??? If he means literally “generating wealth to grow the economy”, a benefit LITERALLY cannot do that. It gets even worse if a benefit is spent on a product that filters money in some fashion to another country’s economy.

    It increases aggregate demand….

    Like other forms of government spending, SNAP, by putting money into people’s hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[31] In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate: “Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.”[32]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

    The $1.84 figure can be found elsewhere:
    http://feedoc.org/WhoWeHelp/Hunger101/SNAP.aspx
    http://nmpovertylaw.org/WP-nmclp/wordpress/?page_id=49

    So he clearly didn’t just make it up.

    This would appear to be where it comes from, as it equates to $1.84 for $1 spent (see Pg 3):

    Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in total community spending

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. CM says:

    Thanks.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CM says:

    Still looking into this figure. The earliest I can trace it back to so far is July 2003, but still looking for any source document/study.

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/Speeches/CT072403.html

    EDIT: Some more progress. The $9.20 per $5 figure is noted on page 5 of this report:
    http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/outreach/pdfs/toolkit/2011/Community/toolkit_complete.pdf

    The footnote for the figure says:
    Hanson, Kenneth, and Elise Golan (2002). Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26/fanrr26-6/fanrr26-6.pdf. Note: The economic effect of increasing food stamp benefits was measured for the whole U.S. economy and may vary by location.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  56. InsipiD says:

    I’m a little late to this party due to a new job. I’ve read the arguments and I’ll sum it up as I see it:

    Vilsack’s statement about food stamps is just the latest example in obvious misunderstanding of economic impact and government spending, so it should come as no surprise that they don’t understand the relationship between tax rates and revenue. They’ve become very fond in the last 10 years of stating in dollar figures what they’re missing out on spending by the tax rate being too low. Their policies are like plugging lots of high-draw items into one cheap power strip, then plugging itself into the last outlet and blaming the neighbor who wouldn’t run an extension cord across the yard for nothing working. They’re spending too much money to begin with, then blaming the wealthy for not paying for it, and never ever believe that there’s something better to do with money than handing it over to the government.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  57. Poosh says:

    So this is the exact same bullshit they use when claiming a government job stimulates an economy. Increasing “aggregate demand” in a manner as starting a war “stimulates” a weapons company. Only the weapon company is helping to fund the war in the first place so it’s circular.

    It’s all fun, for a country running a surplus. But not for America in its current mess. Of course, the real thinking behind this, is surely, that they are taking money from the rich and funneling it into X and Y, and this is “stimulating” as the rich would just shove it under a mattress apparently. That’s what they’re trying to shape your thought towards.

    And there is no reason I would know what a food stamp or food bank is.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  58. AlexInCT says:

    Brining it out of that big box…

    Alex, you claimed that “rich people money ONLY starts doing nothing when these people have to hide it from a confiscatory and abusive“. I’m pointing out that savings increase when recession hits because investment opportunities die off. The recession itself is reason enough for rich people to stop investing. Whether the government is being seen to be engaged in “confiscatory policies” (which is subjective anyway) is largely irrelevant. If there are no investment opportunities which meet the required risk threshold, an investor will just keep hold of their money.

    Rich people ONLY stop investing when the return on their money is not worth it. During a recession, and all things being equal, rich people will MOVE their money where ever they feel they can get the greatest return for the risk they are willing to take. As long as you are able to earn a decent return, and that can be done even in a depression, they will invest. That’s historical fact. if you are talking about investments that create jobs, I grant you that slows down in a recession, but that happens because investments shift due to lack of revenue/income. Up until recently, businesses were still raking in the money, so there was good reason to invest. Just not in anything or any way that grows the job market. And that is happening because of the massive insecurity – they can not predict the cost to them of anything in the near future, let alone a decade – brought on by such things as Obamacare, the new Frank-Dodd regulations, and the hostility from the WH towards people they want to soak to keep spending like drunken sailors on spending steroids.

    However, when investment return is basically wiped out because of confiscatory tax policy or massive uncertainty like we have now, rich people take their money out of that negative environment and move it to other investment vehicles. Like we are seeing now. It goes into things that are not taxed, or overseas so it is not subject to that rip-off. It never ends up under a mattress. That’s nonsense. Just like equating this move to avoid confiscatory government taxes to savings is a cop out.

    Unsustainable western-world private debt is much more than about US law forcing lenders to give people money that should never have. The entire system is set up to encourage as much private debt as possible. You can’t just start blaming one cherry-picked issue because it conveniently suits your ideology. So I don’t buy your narrow premise.

    What are you talking about? Here in the US total credit card debt statistics show that number is some $800 billion dollars. If you want to tack on homeownership debt, without considering the fact that homes are collateral with considerable value and that the majority of homeowners have a considerable amount of equity in their property, you might get around $5 trillion (that’s based on a story I saw dealing with how much Freddie & Fannie Mac had financed), but then that number would be highly misleading. I guess you can tack on student debt, but I think anyone that comes out with more than $30K in debt and a degree other than law, doctor, or engineering already proved they are insane, but while that number recently surpassed credit card debt numbers in the US, that’s only another trillion or so according to this WSJ article. Add it all up and you can say the high end – if you do not credit people the equity they have in their homes and the fact the home usually covers whatever debt they have – is some $7 trillion, with the true number being far lower. Our government is now on pace to go in debt to the tune of $18 trillion. That’s the new $2.4 trillion raise tacked to the already existing $14.5 trillion debt.

    Seems to me that government debt is by far the biggest problem here in the US. Considering how Asians, Latin Americans, and most Europeans deal with debt, I have a hard time believing things are different there. Africa isn’t even worth discussing. So, whatever the reason is that makes you think private debt is a bigger problem eludes me. It certainly is a problem, but even if your point is that private citizens can’t just print money or borrow ad infinitum, like government can, I still am inclined to then say government debt remains by far the more problematic debt, because these assholes remain insulated from the reality that they can’t keep doing this nonsense forever.

    My “beef” is what I posted originally – you’ve claimed facts not in evidence. You are inferring that the figures provided are wrong, but not shown any evidence that they are wrong. You’re claiming the policy is idiotic but have not pointed out a better way to keep money flowing through the economy during dire economic times (that is the aim, as Vilsack said: “It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times”). What is a better way? If you’re going to be so incredibly critical (you couldn’t possible be more critical) then you’ve surely got to have a sure-fire proven alternative. What is it?

    So again, you need me to provide a dissertation, and then for something we have already addressed on numerous other posts, or you are going to accuse me of lying. Check.

    Born in 1974 so too young to remember it.
    But what specifically are you referring to?

    I was referring to this quote by you:

    Also, tax increases on the rich in the past haven’t tanked the economy.

    In the Carter years we had tax rates in the 90% percentile on incomes that government deemed to be excessive, and rates in the 70s. People would simply stop working when they had made enough money to come close to the trigger for either. The economy tanked. The country was in a malaise. The Carter leftists kept telling us that the American dream was over. Then came Ronald Reagan and his first move was to wipe out those ludicrous tax rates, and it reenergized the economy. That’s what I am talking about. There is a a reason that we compare the Obama economy with the Carter economy CM, and it is this exact parallel.

    You where wrong when you said tax increases don’t tank the economy. There is historical proof they do. Just like there is historical proof lowering taxes creates wealth. Google it.

    Dude, you are the one claiming his numbers are wrong and accusing him of lying (and calling him “economic illiterat douche” – I assume your spelling was meant to be ironic?). You’re accusing me of defending his lie. I haven’t accused anyone of lying, or being anything. I’ve not defended a lie. I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate how he’s lying (if you’re so sure then you obviously have some evidence).

    OK, so I am a liar because I pointed out Vilsack was pulling shit out of his ass and making false claims, without providing the dissertation you require? Check.

    BTW, I have shown you why Vilsack was wrong, and yet, I have not gotten a retraction of the accusation. I think I know why, though.

    WTF? At this point you should be simply admitting that you’re guessing that his numbers are wrong. But as that is going to make your abusive criticism seem ridiculous, so I can understand why that’s not going to happen. So now you’re left making shit up and attacking others. It’s all very classy Alex. The weird part is that you don’t seem to realise how transparent it all is.

    Guessing? WTF right back at you. His numbers are wrong because they are based on the principle that there is no associated cost with government taking money out of the economy and then spending or redistributing it. A principle I have shown you already is patently false. He is basically arbitrarily saying that government is creating 84 cents on the dollar of new investments, a number that is nowhere sourced or obtainable other than Vilsack saying so and some special interst group in one state, with a stake in keeping and increasing these welfare programs that I simply do not consider credible at all considering the bias, which basically is nonsense. If this model was honestly true and as successful as he claims, then government should confiscate and redistribute all wealth, not just in NM, but in every fucking state. Can you imagine how booming an economy we would then have? Oh wait, this was already tried. Ask the Soviets, or any of their client states, how well it worked for them. Please tell me what I am making up about that. If anything is weird it is you claiming I am not realizing something transparent when the facts are all on my side. Seriously, find me one credible reason to back up Vilsack’s claim. If it is as transparent as you say, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

    Sorry, that’s all just your opinion. I can claim that it’s a fact that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn’t automatically turn it into a fact.
    You’re the one making the claims, it’s up to you to back them up when required. If you can’t then don’t make such bold claims.

    Ah, yes. It is my opinion that Bastiat’s idiotic claim that the “broken window” fallacy of a model works to create wealth, is flawed. That’s despite economists taking it apart and proving it only seems to work if you ignore the fact that the capital investment that could have gone elsewhere now doesn’t. Well, then, I assume that the British economy should be roaring back any time now with all those jobs fixing all the damage and looting done there recently. BTW, I backed it up. You are now tilting at windmills and trying real hard to move the goal posts yet again, because you have been proven wrong. Not that you will admit it. You can’t. It’s ideological suicide. But it does explain why you continue to insist taxing wealth creation has negligible or no negative impact.

    Show me how/why is numbers are made up.

    How? There is no study anywhere that I have been able to find to back his claims up. All I can show you is that his claim is based on the false premise that there is no cost with government taking money out of the economy then pretending there is a positive return to some idiotic redistribution scheme, and you so far have tired real hard to ignore this or wish it away with excuses that make it obvious you simply refuse to accept or understand the premise.

    Oh yeah, that and the fact that so far the people in this administration have consistently and constantly had most, if not all, of their economic numbers – especially when it comes to jobs – called into question, and then proven to either be misrepresenting or outright lying about it. Remember the ridiculous and outlandish job creation numbers attributed to the stimuluspatronage bill? Or the real studies that showed that government “saved” – and that’s a generous use of that word – some 300K GOVERNMENT jobs while killing a million private sector jobs?

    No, I am sure you are trying real fucking hard to pretend none of that happened. You have yourself convinced, but the rest of us know better.

    1. Never called you a liar. I said you were making shit up by claiming that I was defending a “ridiculous lie”.

    Here is your quote:

    No, it happens over and over again. You claim opinion as fact. You don’t seem to know the difference. It’s fascinating.

    Looks pretty clear to me that’s what you are saying.

    2. Look at the video in your link again. The question is about relief for people in poverty (not about job growth specifically). The first part of his answer is about job growth. HOWEVER he then says “but” (which is missing in the transcript for some reason) and answers the actual question: “I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times”. Nowhere does he claim that food stamps create jobs. So your claim is wrong.

    WTF? Are you really going there CM?

    Vilsack made the ridiculous claim that a government wealth redistribution scam/scheme, in this case food stamps, was a stimulus program. Ignoring the economic damage caused with government taking the money they are handing out to the serfs in the first place completely, he pulls this number I and nobody else can find anywhere to make the case that for every dollar in food stamps government generates $1.84 in economic activity. Activity that directly correlates to fucking jobs. What do you think he is talking about when he says “someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it”. Is he talking maybe about those space aliens Krugman was hoping would attack us so conservatives would go along with a massive military build up paid for with massive US deficit spending so Krugman’s idiotic notion that government spending saves the day can yet again be proven to not work?

    Fuck, at this point I don’t know whether to laugh at you or cry at your stupidity dude.

    Just give us some data. Shouldn’t be that hard, especially as you already know for a ‘fact’ that he’s made up the figures.

    Well, since nobody can find them, I think it kind of makes it hard to give them to you. Conversely, it should make anyone but a person with an ideological agenda at least wonder if this is more of the same made up crap we have been getting from this administration since “Blame Boosh” stopped working a while back. For someone that demands facts, you sure seem very quick to latch on to anything your fellow ideologues say, even when there is a long and sordid history of them being not just quite loose with facts, but outright lying through their teeth about the results of their abysmal policies.

    Besides, I can’t even get you to admit that there is a problem with people in government claiming government spending money it takes out of the economy serves as stimulus because they ignore the impact of taking the money in the first place. Speaking of stimulus spending, how well did the last round of that go? Heh!

    I think I might as well skip the rest of the nonsense you write, but I do want to answer this:

    I think you’ve missed the point of what he actually said entirely, which is about getting money flowing through the economy. Which is part of the larger equation, which also includes trying to get job growth.

    Oh, no way CM. I got what he was “trying to say” perfectly. Vislak’s was trying to make the ludicrous point that government wealth redistribution schemes caused huge economic stimulus, of the job creation kind no less, while completely ignoring the fact that government siphoning wealth from the productive sector had a far more drastic anti-job effect, in order to convince stupid people that more of such wealth redistribution schemes would mean more economic growth & jobs. It’s all nonsense as the current economic climate, the result of decades of this kind of stupid policies, and the massive debt straddling our country, proves without doubt.

    But you can continue to pretend Vilsak was making sense and defend this indefensible bullshit about government , and especially government run wealth redistribution schemes/scams, having a positive economic influence. What a joke.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. sahrab says:

    Second half of sentence: just the issue that if the Govt spends $1

    Third half of the sentence (yes i know), if the government spends $1.00 dollar it is getting more than that single dollar (the overhead for that one dollar) in order to spend it. To make it easy, lets just say its $2.00 (the estimated low side) for every $1.00 spent.

    In order for the Government to have the $2.00 to spend, it has to confiscate it from the Citizenry.

    it doesn’t necessarily take $1 from you. It may take 90c from you and $1.10 from someone else. Depends on what taxes you pay and how much.

    So while your technically correct, that it doesnt necessary get that $2.00 singularly from me, it does get it from the Collective Citizenry of the United States.

    I also dont supply the funds to pay the $3.95 billion the United States pays in expenditures every day, nor do i solely supply the $2.17 Trillion used to pay the interest on the debt.

    You (hopefully) already know this, as do most (if not all) on here (hopefully) which means there really wasnt any reason to post it.

    Fees and charges aren’t taxes if they are user-pay charges that would otherwise have to be subsidised by taxes.

    If something, anything, would normally be subsidised by taxes, than any other name for them are still taxes.

    In this case Fees and charges are nothing more than another name for Taxes

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  60. sahrab says:

    In the course of this conversation: A confiscatory government practice upheld by the belief the government knows how to spend money better than the citizenry it represents.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  61. JimK says:

    Okay, I’m popping this out to a new reply so that it doesn’t threadjack Alex’s comment, but this is response to his pop-out replying to CM:

    Fuck, at this point I don’t know whether to laugh at you or cry at your stupidity dude.

    Okay, first of all, I think CM needs to nut the fuck up and stop being such a goddamned crybaby. This is RTFTLC, not the NPR comments section. Apparently he never read Lee’s blog. I think I personally have fallen for his “I’m being genuine and rational” bullshit and I’ve let it cloud my judgement on how things oughtta be around here.

    That having been said, in the interest of fairness Alex, it’s that specific and exact kind of comment which I’ve quoted that inflames him and starts the never-ending Alex/CM war. Not sure it was entirely necessary to make your point…which you did, IMHO.

    Now, THAT having been said, I’m at a crossroads here. So I’m soliciting the advice of the crowd.

    Everyone who gives a shit, weigh in on this question:

    Do we try to reign in the name calling and vitriol, and also declare certain threads open Thunderdome battlegrounds to let off steam, or do we just say fuck it and let this place be the Wild West and watch people post endless arguments full of “You’re a cocksucking dicknosed shiteater.” I’m not speaking of just these two, loads of folks get locked into that sort of thing. Hell, I haven’t crafted a full on flame in ages, it used to be one of my favorite things to do, to creatively explain to someone just how low and opinion I had of them at that moment.

    I don’t want to influence your opinion, but I’m leaning toward just saying “Fuck it” and letting shit fly. I don’t think I want to babysit anymore. Plus, I’m not sure Lee would do it for very long either, and I don’t want to lose that roughneck vibe this place has always had.

    Your opinions please. Sorry to threadjack.
    JimK recently posted..You were supposed to sing or dance while the music was playingMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  62. JimK says:

    And what, pray tell, is economic stimulus if not, ultimately, job creation? Not to mention that while he used the phrase as you said, he then went on to discuss the specific JOBS that are required to provide the goods purchased with SNAP money.

    IMHO, parsing the language like a politician does nothing to sell a concept to people who don’t play word games all day to obfuscate the true meaning of what they’re saying.
    JimK recently posted..You were supposed to sing or dance while the music was playingMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  63. Hal_10000 says:

    In the Carter years we had tax rates in the 90% percentile on incomes that government deemed to be excessive, and rates in the 70s. People would simply stop working when they had made enough money to come close to the trigger for either. The economy tanked. The country was in a malaise. The Carter leftists kept telling us that the American dream was over. Then came Ronald Reagan and his first move was to wipe out those ludicrous tax rates, and it reenergized the economy.

    It’s not as simple as that. As Barlett pointed out today (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/08/19/Buffett-May-Be-Right-but-the-Top-Tax-Rate-is-Wrong.aspx#page1), those tax rates kicked in at VERY high levels of income (the equivalent of about $10 million per year). What’s more, the last thirty years have shown little correlation between marginal rates and economic health. 50% and 40% in the Reagan and Clinton booms vs. 33% in the Bush non-boom. A bigger factor in the Carter years was misguided Fed policy and Keynesian bullshit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. hist_ed says:

    As someone who regularly claims the high ground on personal insults, etc., I say let ‘em roll. This site has, as long as I have been here (years now, jeeze) been an open pit mud wrestling extravaganza. If you can’t take it, then fuck off you pussy. There are a billion sites with moderators that go apeshit* if you call someone a cocksucker.

    And it makes me feel oooooohhhh sooooo superior to be able to occasionally say “Well, I never call liberals retrads and I maintain that intelligent well meaning people can disagree.” I really need that for my self esteem right now.

    * Is “apeshit” one word or two? Any ideas?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  65. sahrab says:

    I’d say let it fly.

    We all have the freedom to scan past and ignore the posts.

    Both CM and Alex (in this particular case) suffer from a case of posting diarrhea. Seems the ultimate goal is to post as many sentences into a thread, and end the debate (a’la “Win”), by the other one giving up due to fatigue.

    No Knock on Alex… well ok damnit CM either, but after a couple posts in, i usually ignore them as you can only watch a merry go round for so long.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Rann says:

    It’s hard to say. I personally have been trying to make myself pull back a bit on insults and all, but sometimes there really isn’t anything to say to someone other than “Shut the fuck up, you’re a goddamn idiot.” I mean, there are other things, but essentially they’d wind up being five paragraphs of non-swearing and forced civility that anyone reading knows actually means “Shut the fuck up, you’re a goddamn idiot.” It’s just a polite fiction to pretend otherwise.

    “We’re all friends now. On the surface, where it counts.” – Karen Walker, Will & Grace

    I think the thing is that if we were to go to a model where insults were banned, it would have to be with an understanding that there would be really really strict guidelines for comment quality. And I’m not talking about bad words or personal attacks. I’m saying that comments (outside of posted free-for-all posts) would have to all actually be contributing to the discussion or stating views in an articulate manner.

    Sure, CM might get his wish… no more people calling him out, calling him names, dismissing him with generalities. Then he’d find himself back in the shit when he got in one of his little pissy moods and started making petulant two-sentence comments that are borderline-to-obvious trolling or just pure sulkiness. I doubt he’d find himself caring for the “level of discourse” rules then.

    Really it’s more trouble than it’s worth. Inevitably enacting some sort of “minimum standard” beyond “don’t just shitpost” winds up with people rules-lawyering and getting pedantic (which Alex and CM don’t need any more encouragement in), and no matter how fair the mods attempt to be in exercising that rule those on the other side will inevitably call them the most biased thing to ever touch a keyboard. It’s just a huge headache.

    On another more amusing note, I do browse an image board that has a politics board on it. One year for April 1st (and leading up to it a bit), the mod announced that there would be a new rule to cut down on the amount of vitriol… no comment or post could be made without including an image from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic.

    (The really scary thing? It worked. For around 36 hours people actually abided by the rule, and it was one of the more peaceful and rational stretches I’d seen on the place since its inception.)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Poosh says:

    oh FUCK YOU for quoting Will and Grace.

    Seriously. I cannot believe I read that. A good quote sure, but WILL AND GRACE.

    This really GRINDS MY GEARS.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Rann says:

    Oh be nice!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  69. ilovecress says:

    I haven’t been able to post for a while due to a new job, but I have been lurking for a while, and here’s my 0.02…

    I say let the insults fly. It’s not a prayer circle.

    Having said that it can be tough to comment here is you’re not a conservative, because of the strength in numbers. Having posted here for, I dunno, five years? I’ve seen every single commenter on the more liberal side get shouted down and beaten out simply because in the opinion of the majority of people on this site, that person is ‘a fucking retard’ simply because of the fact that they are liberal. So it’s not the insults, it’s the outright dismissing of what people with differing views say.

    So you’ve got to ask yourself what you want here. Do you want good robust debate, with arguments about issues? Or do you want everyone to here to just congratulate each other on being right, and all agree that those liberals are evil/stupid/whatever.

    I don’t mind you calling me a ‘cocksmoking tamponsniffer’ if you allow me to respond to the substance of your problem with me and actually fucking listen.

    Obviously thats for you to decide – but it seems that at the moment we’re getting the worst of both worlds. A post goes up, the conservative call the liberals ‘stupid’, the libs say ‘am not’ the cons say ‘are too’ and then we just ask for ‘facts’. No one learns anything or has a decent debate – it’s all just defending pre-existing positions.

    What I’d love to see (and I know I don’t have a say in this) is Alex make a post, then make his coment on it and ask the liberals to defend it. And actually want them to defend it, rather than hoping it’s a brilliant trap where you can finally expose those stinking liberals for what they are.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  70. Kimpost says:

    While it might sound nice to just let things fly, things could get out of hand. Most things should be allowed, even an insult or two, but when it starts dominating entire threads, it becomes problematic.

    I’m not sure what to do about it, though.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  71. Hal_10000 says:

    My temptation is to let the insults fly but I think cress has a good point that we’ve chased a lot of liberals out of here. My feeling is to let it go for now with warnings/suspensions if someone gets really out of hand.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  72. Rann says:

    “Ape shit” would be an object, “apeshit” would be a behavior or state of mind.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  73. CzarChasm says:

    My natural inclination, as has probably been noticed by most in my short time here, is to be the wordiest cocksucking dicknosed shiteater on any board I’ve ever participated on. That said, though I have been known to falter from time to time, I try not to use that kind of language unless it’s either self-deprecating like above, or obviously in jest, as in noting that something CM said recently was “just retarded” after having just stated that I don’t recall ever being tempted to call liberals retards.

    Having said that, I’ll take this opportunity here to answer Jim’s question by saying, hopefully for the first and last time on this board, that, as a committed constitutional originalist conservative, I think all liberals/communists/socialists/Obama supporters/FDR supporters/Jimmy Carter supporters/Che-Gueverra-T-Shirt-wearers are ill-informed, idiotic, pabulum-puking, liberty-killing, Constitution-hating, cocksucking, dicknosed, shiteating morons. All of that is the driving force behind every disagreement I have with every leftist, though to always state it that way does get tedious, and doesn’t seem to accomplish much, if anything. I like to think that my prowess with the English language affords me a more creative and imaginative way of insulting folks when I feel that insult is appropriate.

    So in the end Jim, the direct answer to your question is I don’t care. Just let me know what the rules are and I’ll abide by them. Hopefully, my screeds would never be the reason you had to ask such a question to begin with though. All I’m saying is, if you keep it at “let it fly,” I can take it without participating in it (which I likely won’t), and if you put the clamps down, well, I will likely already be posting within the parameters of those clamps anyway, so adaptation won’t be a big deal for me.

    I don’t think I quite met my goal of being the wordiest cocksucking dicknosed shiteater in this thread, but everyone will likely be glad to read that that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

    CC

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  74. AlexInCT says:

    With all do respect Kimpost, I think CM and I are mature enough to trade a few fucks without either of us deciding it is time to hire a hit man to get the other. Well, at least I can, and in all fairness to CM, I have to say that while I think the man is insane for believing the stuff he does, that so far CM has not shown anything that would let me think he would do something that crazy, either.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  75. AlexInCT says:

    I say let the insults fly. It’s not a prayer circle.

    YOU WILL BOW TO SKYNETT AND WORSHIP THE ALMIGHTY CHIP!…

    Freedom of religon is abitch.. :)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  76. Section8 says:

    I wish I could be of more help, but I never swear or name call.

    My opinion, let it fly. At the end of the day it’s refreshing to have the Hals and Kimposts of the world who play it calm, and then those who like to fling shit. It’s a good mix. Yeah, sometimes the name calling can get old, but it seems like a cycle here where everyone has enough of it, then it starts back up again.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  77. HARLEY says:

    some of ya fuckers need to start taking some midol…………..
    Has anyone payed attention to how long and convoluted this thread has become?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  78. sahrab says:

    fuck you, you fucking fuck!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    you were just the random target for random vulgarity

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  79. Poosh says:

    HULK SMASH !!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  80. CM says:

    Fuck yous all.

    I agree that there should be no rules. People should be able to monitor their own behaviour. If they can’t and all they want to do is post retarded shit and invent things to support their ideology, then that will be on record for all to see. There really were no rules at MW forums, and it worked well for many years. But there when someone was clearly being a dick, people on their own side called them on it. It kept everything nicely in balance, and so no rules were required. Here, there doesn’t seem to be any of that. There seems to be some sort of piling-on according to ideology. So it doesn’t work nearly so well. Doesn’t help that Kimpost and I are on our lonesome. We’re actually both very moderate, but we’re now very used to people continually assuming we’re not. Unfortunately people tend to like to be more simplistic and take shots at whatever target is closest.

    I don’t care about abuse if it’s accompanied by substance. BluesStringer at MW forums was a master of insult but usually only when it got to the appropriate point and he also ensured that he didn’t leave a post substance-free. There was almost an unwritten rule. But here, now, lame personal abuse is just hurled from the get-go (again check out the start of this thread). I’m not surprised all the liberals have given up here, whereas they didn’t at MW forums. I’m not a quitter and I don’t feel like going through the hassle of finding somewhere else, so I’ll more than likely stick around whatever happens. Sorry about that!

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  81. CM says:

    Alex, that’s a lot of words to admit you were wrong and that you acknowledge that you can’t say he pulled the numbers out of his ass (he didn’t, as I’ve found multiple references as well as the original source from 2003 and yet you STILL maintain the opposite even when direct evidence is placed before you), or that you can’t point out specific flaws in the methodology that arrived at that figure. If you can’t find flaws in the math, then you can’t claim it’s crap. And you KEEP making things up. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that we’re talking about the food stamps programme which has been going on for some time, not some new dodgy job-creation scheme. This is about keeping people from starving or from relying en-masse on food banks (which would then collapse). And more telling than anything else written in this entire thread: you conveniently skipped over answering my question about your alternative plan to keep money flowing through at the bottom end of the economy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. Jim says:

    I am assuming this is what CM was referring to although I did not find it on page 5. (Page 8)

    Not only does SNAP help individuals and
    families when money’s tight, but your State
    and local community also benefit. The average
    SNAP benefit per person is about $101 per
    month (fiscal year 2008 data), which is spent
    in local grocery stores. In fact, every $5 in
    new Federal SNAP benefits generates almost
    double the amount in local economic activity.
    Also, every additional dollar in SNAP benefits
    generates 17 to 47 cents of new spending on
    food.

    I believe I have found the subtle math error. I haven’t had enough sleep and just got off work, so someone double check my logic.
    The claim is that every $5 in new benefits generates almost double the amount in economic activity. The problem is, every $5 in *new* benefits does *not* equate to new *spending.* The last sentence in the quote points out that only 17 to 47 cents is actually *new* spending. For every $5 in *new* benefits to create double in economic activity, assuming the *best* case (47 cents on the dollar of new spending) every $5 spent would have to create *four times* the economic activity. (because more than half of that activity is actually activity that would have occurred anyway, by the quote’s own admission.)
    While I might be able to believe that every $5 spent on food creates $10 in economic activity (not profit, simply money changing hands) I find it a bit harder to believe that it creates $20 to $30 in economic activity. I could be wrong, I’d have to see where they get the numbers in the first place.
    So basically, for every $5 in *new* benefits, you are only seeing $1-$2.5 in *new spending*. Assuming a double in economic activity, that means every $5 in *new* benefits equates to a $2-$5 increase in *new* economic activity. *NEW* spending is the issue here, because only *new* spending increases the local economy. So unless I can see how they specifically determine economic activity created, I’m going to have to go with my mathematical analysis above.

    edit: This analysis completely neglects the fact that the benefits are tax money taken from someone else. You have to assume that *none* of that money would be spent in the local economy if it was not taken from the original person and you have to assume *zero* overhead in the handling of the tax money as well. I find it seriously hard to believe those factors were taken into account to get the numbers quoted in the article. Again, I would have to see their specific economic methodology to determine if the math is accurate. But I think it is safe to say at least part of that tax dollar would have been spent into the economy and that more than a single dollar was taken to create one dollar in SNAP benefits. Taking these factors into account, I believe the math is Whack.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  83. Jim says:

    I have no idea how much CM and I agree on and I do know we have gone up against each other, sometimes with fervor, on more than one occasion. (Believe me, I’m sure you can find examples of me cussing CM out more than once, but not after around August 2010.) But I have found that the more respect I show him and Kimpost (but not necessarily their ideas :P) the more I actually *learn* from the discussion, even if I become *more* rooted in my ideas.
    I believe it is up to the individual posters to determine what they wish to include and if they wish to throw a dig or two at what they see as an insanely stupid comment. It does add some humor and excitement. But let’s not forget that if that’s *all* the discussion is, it’s pretty worthless. I’d rather *learn* from a discussion, or at least gain understanding. But to each his own. I’m tired and rambling, so I’ll just say Cheers to *everyone* on the boards :()

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  84. AlexInCT says:

    Alex, that’s a lot of words to admit you were wrong and that you acknowledge that you can’t say he pulled the numbers out of his ass (he didn’t, as I’ve found multiple references as well as the original source from 2003 and yet you STILL maintain the opposite even when direct evidence is placed before you), or that you can’t point out specific flaws in the methodology that arrived at that figure.

    You must have a problem with the English language CM, because what I said was very different than what you want to pretend I did. I clearly said that the reason the numbers can not be broken down is that they are bullshit numbers. As in made up or cherry picked, nonsense, taken from some group with an agenda – to increase welfare programs they are getting rich off of, in NM and without any proof that this is the case nationwide, so these losers in the Obama Admin can claim welfare is a form of economic stimulus. And by economic stimulus they mean it creates jobs. At best their claim is based on a shell game where the people making the claim do it in a vacuum. The reality is that it is a nonsense claim. The cash doesn’t appear magically: it is taken from other people that would have done far more good with it. Of course, this idiotic response of yours is par for the course.

    No, I stand by my original assertion that Vilsack’s claim is patently false and faulty, to the point of being just one more of the plethora of ridiculous lies the Obama administration has been telling us for the last 3 years about how effective their economic measures have been, and nothing else. If they want to claim that government wealth redistribution schemes help some people, I can live with that, even though I think they harm far more people and create dependencies. But I am damned if I will take seriously the ridiculous claim that they are also a form of economic stimulus because they create jobs -and yes, that’s what Vilsack was saying it did, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise – when they completely ignore the massive amount of jobs that get killed in the first place when thy siphon out the wealth from others.

    If you can’t find flaws in the math, then you can’t claim it’s crap.

    Really? No wonder you believe that AGW crap then. You do understand the premise that if the math is fine but based on a false premise, there is no need to find flaws with it. It dismisses itself once the flawed premise is pointed out. I can prove gravity doesn’t work through math by showing you the equations for what gravity is in a vehicle that is traveling under the correct conditions to dismiss it’s effects, while not telling you that precondition, but that doesn’t disprove the fact gravity exists.

    And you KEEP making things up.

    I am still waiting for you to give me the examples you claim are so numerous.

    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that we’re talking about the food stamps programme which has been going on for some time, not some new dodgy job-creation scheme.

    I have not ignored anything. I am specifically pointing out that these desperate idiots are now worried that people finally are catching on to what they and their ideological big government programs have done to our country and economy, and with the people no longer in the mood for programs like these wealth redistribution schemes that give them both their constituency and power, they are worried to death. That’s why they are thus trying to push the idiotic notion that welfare is a stimulus. It’s in the hopes that people will take this nonsense at face value and soften up their belief that government wastes and does a lot more harm than good with these programs, which they can’t pay for. By alluding of all things that the welfare handouts from these wealth redistribution scheme that government runs they generates employment, they hope people find more value in the wealth redistribution scheme. It’s the whole “Shovel-ready” stimulus projects nonsense in a new package.

    I am afraid the one really trying hard to pretend that Vilsack did imply wealth redistribution schemes are economic stimulus and create jobs is you. And you are failing miserably.

    This is about keeping people from starving or from relying en-masse on food banks (which would then collapse).

    Oh, please, I am laughing my ass off now? Really? Keeping people from starving? Must be why the number of people now on such welfare programs have skyrocketed under Obama. No, this was about pre-empting the coming arguments about government spending cuts and saving their turf. Your emotionalism, which you always accuse my arguments of being, is coming through loud and clear. Maybe you should have not replied and shot yourself in the foot yet again.

    And more telling than anything else written in this entire thread: you conveniently skipped over answering my question about your alternative plan to keep money flowing through at the bottom end of the economy.

    Oh, that emotionalism CM, it tastes sweet.

    We have now gone from discussing Vilsack’s ludicrous claim that wealth redistribution scams are economic stimulus to what really is important to Vilsack and you; keeping these huge schemes that transfer trillions of dollars of wealth, in a manner that empowers big government people like Vilsack and other collectivists to keep demanding the taking of even bigger chunks of money for their schemes, going. For the poor people at the bottom that would starve without these high minded liberals giving them handouts in return for their vote!

    Why the fuck should that matter a whit when the point is that Vilsack lied when he claimed that this wealth redistribution scheme, and by default all other such wealth distribution schemes, are/is economic stimulus? Why would I bother answering it when it isn’t pertinent to the conversation of whether or not government confiscating wealth from producers to buy votes from non producers creates economic stimulus and hence jobs?

    Here is the short of it: let the wealth creators create jobs. The money will flow fine. Get the fucking government out of the business of trying to pick life’s winners & losers. All they have done is lay the groundwork to guarantee we will all be losers and their serfs when we go back to the only system that can survive the coming economic turbulence: a tyrannical leadership class and the rest serfs to that class.

    The chilrden! The poor! The hungry!.. All emotionalism to convince people to let them do more of the same. Nothign else.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  85. CM says:

    Well said Jim. I certainly have a lot of respect for you, even if I don’t share many of your beliefs.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  86. CM says:

    You must have a problem with the English language CM, because what I said was very different than what you want to pretend I did. I clearly said that the reason the numbers can not be broken down is that they are bullshit numbers…..[blah blah blah repeating the same accusations and claims without any evidence].

    You’re just going about in a same identical narratove evidence-free circle and trying to pretend otherwise.

    that’s what Vilsack was saying it did, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise

    Listen to the question, then listen to the answer. It’s not what your link claims. They don’t even have the transcript correct.

    Really?

    Yes, really. But I’ve already proven that he didn’t pull it out of his arse. The stat goes back to research from 2003.

    No wonder you believe that AGW crap then.

    No need for me to ‘believe’. I understand the scientific basics and can defer to the body of science and the world’s scientific experts. It’s you that relies on faith and belief when it comes to blind denial and views that make no actual sense. But then that’s been demonstrated very clearly.

    I am still waiting for you to give me the examples you claim are so numerous.

    I’ve already pointed them out. Not my fault you skip over them in your haste to make even more stuff up. How about the fact that you claiming I was defending a lie? Two inventions in one there. I wasn’t defending anything and you haven’t established that his number is a lie.

    It’s the whole “Shovel-ready” stimulus projects nonsense in a new package.

    No it isn’t, but then that’s the whole point which you keep missing. Foodstamps are about keeping the people at the very bottom from starving, and get money flowing around at that level and in those communities.

    I am afraid the one really trying hard to pretend that Vilsack did imply wealth redistribution schemes are economic stimulus and create jobs is you. And you are failing miserably.

    I’m the one trying to claim that foodstamps create jobs? WTF? You’ve completely lost the plot now. Are you now simply pleading insanity?

    Must be why the number of people now on such welfare programs have skyrocketed under Obama.

    Obama inherited a dire economic situation and it hasn’t gotten any better.

    No, this was about pre-empting the coming arguments about government spending cuts and saving their turf.

    That’s your opinion. Really, you need to get a better understanding between the meaning of certain words – start with ‘opinion’, ‘narrative’, ‘evidence’, and ‘fact’.

    Oh, that emotionalism CM, it tastes sweet.

    No idea what this new tactic is about. There’s nothing emotional about pointing out what the whole purpose of foodstamps are.

    We have now gone from discussing Vilsack’s ludicrous claim that wealth redistribution scams are economic stimulus to what really is important to Vilsack and you; keeping these huge schemes that transfer trillions of dollars of wealth, in a manner that empowers big government people like Vilsack and other collectivists to keep demanding the taking of even bigger chunks of money for their schemes, going. For the poor people at the bottom that would starve without these high minded liberals giving them handouts in return for their vote!

    You are suggesting that his specific mention of a finding from 2003 relating to the specific effects of foodstamps equates to “wealth redistribution scams is economic stimulus”? Sorry, that just doesn’t work. He quoted something that you didn’t either bother to investigate before you went into your usual super-hyberbolic rant-fest state.
    And now you’re back to inventing what I think. Always the sign of the chronic desperation.

    Why the fuck should that matter a whit when the point is that Vilsack lied

    So you’re finally admitting that the question and answer have been twisted to suit the narrative?

    The chilrden! The poor! The hungry!.. All emotionalism to convince people to let them do more of the same. Nothign else.

    I know they say that Americans don’t understand irony but that’s just ridiculous. I’ve been the one providing links to specific research (and evidence given to Committees to support the contention about stimulating the economy). You’re the one expressing all the emotion here Alex, from your very first post, to your initial one to me where you start screeching and hollering, right up until now.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  87. CM says:

    So it’s not the insults, it’s the outright dismissing of what people with differing views say.

    So you’ve got to ask yourself what you want here.

    Exactly.
    Alex, what do you want here?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  88. AlexInCT says:

    You’re just going about in a same identical narratove evidence-free circle and trying to pretend otherwise.

    Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn’t make it so CM. Others have tried to point out the problem with Vilsack’s argument and you dismissed them too. They are smarter than me because they wisely chose to just ignore you after that. Repeat what you said above as often as you want, if it makes you happy, but the facts are there for anyone that doesn’t want to pretend otherwise.

    Listen to the question, then listen to the answer. It’s not what your link claims. They don’t even have the transcript correct.

    I will again ask if you suffer from a lack of English comprehension. The point is that Vilsack tried to make the ludicrous preposition that government welfare, wealth redistribution schemes the lot of them, are stimulus and create economic growth & jobs. That is bogus bullshit because he ignores how much damage government causes taking the money out in the first place.

    I’ve already pointed them out. Not my fault you skip over them in your haste to make even more stuff up. How about the fact that you claiming I was defending a lie? Two inventions in one there. I wasn’t defending anything and you haven’t established that his number is a lie.

    No you have not. You have done exactly what you have done here: pretend you pointed out me making up shit in the past, and then your example is bogus. You claim I lied when I accused you of defending Vilsack? Why do you then keep defending what he said and, and worse, doing so by ignoring the evidence that shows he not only said government wealth redistribution schemes like welfare equated with stimulus, but pretending that I and others have not shown there was a clear problem with that unbelievably desperate bullshit Vilsack said.

    Par for the course with you. Here is some more comedy gold from you.

    No it isn’t, but then that’s the whole point which you keep missing. Foodstamps are about keeping the people at the very bottom from starving, and get money flowing around at that level and in those communities.

    Who gives a fuck what food stamps are for? The problem is with the lie Vilsack told that they create jobs and are an economic positive. They are not. They are a wealth transfer scheme, and even you just admitted that in that emotional rant about the people at the bottom. It IS another example of shovel ready stimulus: a fail.

    I’m the one trying to claim that foodstamps create jobs? WTF? You’ve completely lost the plot now. Are you now simply pleading insanity?

    No CM, Vilsack did, and you keep defending him. You draw your conclusion from that. The one that lost the plot is you. You have moved the goal posts so often you don’t have a clue where they are now.

    Obama inherited a dire economic situation and it hasn’t gotten any better.

    He sure did inherit a shitty situation, but he can thank the democrats and their housing laws and schemes, going back 3 decades, and the inevitable collapse they would lead to, for that. Let’s make sure that is not lost in that attempt to give him a pass. Blame Boosh is so yesterday, and it goes nowhere anymore.

    And the bad economic situation hasn’t gotten any better, and in fact is getting worse, because Obama and his team have done everything that guarantees to make it worse. Even the Carter administration was not this hostile to the private sector. From energy policy to healthcare takeover, and lets not forget the Dodd-Frank bill or the stimulus, they have burned money and pissed on the private sector.

    That’s your opinion. Really, you need to get a better understanding between the meaning of certain words – start with ‘opinion’, ‘narrative’, ‘evidence’, and ‘fact’.

    And what you refer to as my opinion CM happens to coincide with what many economists, strategists, and other very learned people that deal with this political stuff daily, are now pointing out. What you need to do is to stop trying to infer that because someone points something out you don’t like, it is an opinion, and thus something you can dismiss.

    As for your demand for evidence, it’s not like anyone in the Obama administration will come out and admit this is why they are doing this dumb shit. Of course, I would fully expect that your defense if that should happen, as you have done repeatedly, would be claiming that what they are saying really/exactly isn’t really what they meant to say. You have done this often. I also would like to point out how your requirement for “evidence” to accept something seems to be very low to none existent when it is something you agree with, but the bar is always set impossibly high when you want to keep ignoring it.

    BTW CM, will you apologize to me when others start saying that this nonsense Vilsack said was just battlespace preparation by the WH in the coming budget battles, or will you continue to pretend it was my opinion. Never mind. It was a rhetorical question. I now what you will do.

    So you’re finally admitting that the question and answer have been twisted to suit the narrative?

    Actually I am pointing out you moved the goal posts – by shifting away from the argument about Vilsack saying something that is wrong to your whining about those poor people starving at the bottom end without government handouts – yet again, and you then went and did some more of that with that bullshit that I admitted a twisted narrative of some sort, when I did nothing like that.

    I know they say that Americans don’t understand irony but that’s just ridiculous. I’ve been the one providing links to specific research (and evidence given to Committees to support the contention about stimulating the economy). You’re the one expressing all the emotion here Alex, from your very first post, to your initial one to me where you start screeching and hollering, right up until now.

    You have been providing nonsense and hot air in an attempt to derail the actual fact that Vilsack said something false and stupid, based on a broken and false economic model that desperately tries to pretend government produces more economic positives despite all the negative it creates by either siphoning a huge chunk of private sector wealth or borrowing/printing cash we don’t have, in the hopes of so obfuscating the argument people can’t make sense of the problem. It is not working. Your plethora of useless links notwithstanding. You must think Americans don’t understand that tactic either.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  89. CM says:

    And around and around we go. Pretty much everything you write above is patently wrong and/or ridiculous. You’ve ignored most of what I’ve actually said and replaced it with what you want me to have said. There’s no point going any futher. Insanity (albeit absolutely fascinating).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  90. AlexInCT says:

    I know you are but what am I? Cause that’s what any discussion with you seems to devolve into.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  91. CM says:

    I’ve had a large number of great and detailed discussions with a whole host of conservatives and liberatarians over the last decade, online and otherwise. Many of them I respect a great deal because they stick to the arguments and support them and don’t turn into 10 years old at the drop of a hat. I don’t even see how that would be remotely possible with you. You don’t even want to try.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  92. AlexInCT says:

    What discussion would that be? You repeat the same nonsense over and over, bombard with links from places that make people laugh their ass off, then when cornered move the goal posts? Cause that’s all I have seen you do.

    My reaction to you is predicated on the fact that you pretend to want an honest discussion but do nothing of the sort. I tried real hard at first until I realized that there was no chance of that with you. Others have already repeated everything I have told you here about the problems with Vilsack’s claims, and yet, you still continue to pretend that I am in the wrong. Did you read any of the other posts? This happens on every damned thread we go at it. So your attempts to claim the high road falls on deaf ears.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.