So Now This Constitutes A Post Worthy Of Being Mod'ed?

[Wonkish1]

Just curious wonkish and CARL!: Since over a third of the stimulus involved tax cuts, are you both conceding that tax cuts aren't effective at spurring economic growth? Conversely, doesn't that mean that tax increases to the same degree won't inhibit economic growth?

Please advise <grabs popcorn>.

Well first a lot of those "tax cuts" weren't real tax cuts(more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits big difference). Second, it wasn't actually a 1/3rd(even though I'm sure you'll be able to produce a false link repeating that fallacious statement). Third, debt has a negative impact on growth so when tax cuts are a fraction of the new debt taken on then the debt will way overpower the "tax cuts". Fourth, temporary tax changes don't have much affect on long term investment(like hiring someone or expanding operations for example).

The package had no rate changes. Not to income, corporate, capital gains, dividends, gas, payroll, etc. Those long term changes have a real and large affect on behavior.

As requested, "fake" link from your Bible, that right wing shill for labor, the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html

The $288 Billion in tax breaks, compared to $144 Billion in aid to states (almost all for Medicaid and education funding) and $357 Billion in federal spending, tax cuts constituted about 37% of the stimulus. So you're right, it really wasn't actually a third---it was higher. Thanks Wonky!

And as far as the tax cuts being not "real tax cuts (more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits" that only is correct at all for about $19.1 Billion in such credits. Less than a 10th of the overall cuts--and what lesser portion of that sliver actually constituted "subsidies" as opposed to actual cuts isn't clear---but it's apparently even less.

Tax cuts that don't contribute to hiring? look at the largest ($117 Billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers. And.....ugh, why do I even try?

Your point about increased debt ameliorating the effect of tax cuts, you realize, repudiates conservative economics, both gospel and practice, from the last 3 decades?

Wow that is absolutely hilarious. The funny thing is that you don't even realize how stupid your post just was. You claim there was only $19.1 billion in tax credits and then in the very next paragraph you say "look at the largest ($117 billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers.

I mean why do I even try? I'm debating putting your post on the ignorance and stupidity thread. You don't even realize the $hit you post is completely contradictory within 2 paragraphs.

Way to embarrass yourself in your attempt to try to make me look bad.

The underlined portions are everything that was mod'ed out.

I thought that attacking the post is perfectly fine and that attacking the person wasn't okay. Apparently, I'm getting hit with a new standard.

What a crock!

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

This user is currently ignored.

[Χahar]

That seems fair, especially since you write something similar to that in at least a quarter of your posts. Your rudeness clearly isn't an isolated incident.

[Wonkish1]

That seems fair, especially since you write something similar to that in at least a quarter of your posts.

Really? Explain to me how all of that is attacking the person instead of the post?

Is this the standard you now want to be held to? Anytime you attack a post(and not the person) you want to be mod'ed?

[Lief]

Everything that gets you closer to that 100 infraction point banning finish line is "worthy", Wonk.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

This user is currently ignored.

LOL, you had me going there. I know I didn't have you on ignore...

[Snowguy716]

Which moderator was it?

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

This user is currently ignored.

LOL, you had me going there. I know I didn't have you on ignore...

Hahaha

[Wonkish1]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

[Lief]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

[Wonkish1]

Everything that gets you closer to that 100 infraction point banning finish line is "worthy", Wonk.

Well if that is the case then just ban me now! If you aren't going to mod fairly then you might as well just make it official that these forums are more friendly to Democrats. These forums are privately owned I have no rights here.

Although what comes with that is basically an admission that these forums aren't impartial.

[Wonkish1]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

So does that mean you want to be held to the standard that attacking someone's post(and not the person) is fair game? If you do agree to that I'll be more than willing to go back through your post history and report all of them that fit in that criteria.

[Χahar]

That seems fair, especially since you write something similar to that in at least a quarter of your posts.

Really? Explain to me how all of that is attacking the person instead of the post?

Is this the standard you now want to be held to? Anytime you attack a post(and not the person) you want to be mod'ed?

I'd like to think that people here generally like me, because I generally try to treat people with respect. I know I've lashed out at people before, but those instances are rare, and I think people recognize that they are isolated events. However, you have consistently been rude to people. That's a problem, since people tend not to appreciate rudeness. The post that was edited was one example of that behavior. Be nicer and you'll find that you won't have your comments moderated.

[Snowguy716]

Trust me Wonkish, there are plenty of Democrats that are wildly unpopular on this forum as well.

This forum is very cliqueish and you're clearly not in it.  It happens to a lot of posters... I used to whine and bitch about it a lot and all it did was make people start hating me... so I just gave up.

[Χahar]

Trust me Wonkish, there are plenty of Democrats that are wildly unpopular on this forum as well.

This forum is very cliqueish and you're clearly not in it.  It happens to a lot of posters... I used to whine and bitch about it a lot and all it did was make people start hating me... so I just gave up.

I think the problem is his constant insults, not our cliquishness.

[Wonkish1]

That seems fair, especially since you write something similar to that in at least a quarter of your posts.

Really? Explain to me how all of that is attacking the person instead of the post?

Is this the standard you now want to be held to? Anytime you attack a post(and not the person) you want to be mod'ed?

I'd like to think that people here generally like me, because I generally try to treat people with respect. I know I've lashed out at people before, but those instances are rare, and I think people recognize that they are isolated events. However, you have consistently been rude to people. That's a problem, since people tend not to appreciate rudeness. The post that was edited was one example of that behavior. Be nicer and you'll find that you won't have your comments moderated.

Something's not right when pointing out a post is a dumb post is considered rude!

Also how about the thread that was created to showcase everybody's ignorant, absurd, and bad posts? Is that any more rude? How about all of the people that participate in the Horrible Person vs. Freedom Fighter threads of which I've avoided? Is that not a personal attack?

And even if my post is rude that isn't something that is currently on the list of things to be mod'ed and I don't think there is a way to even do that because it would be so subjective. If someone even perceived a tone that wasn't there they could get infraction points.


The point is that I didn't attack Badger, I attacked his post and this is within the rules.

[Snowguy716]

Trust me Wonkish, there are plenty of Democrats that are wildly unpopular on this forum as well.

This forum is very cliqueish and you're clearly not in it.  It happens to a lot of posters... I used to whine and bitch about it a lot and all it did was make people start hating me... so I just gave up.

I think the problem is his constant insults, not our cliquishness.

Because he called someone stupid?

[Insula Dei]

Are we cliquish? What clique am I in? Or am I de facto a forum outcast?

[Wonkish1]

Trust me Wonkish, there are plenty of Democrats that are wildly unpopular on this forum as well.

This forum is very cliqueish and you're clearly not in it.  It happens to a lot of posters... I used to whine and bitch about it a lot and all it did was make people start hating me... so I just gave up.

I think the problem is his constant insults, not our cliquishness.

Okay then point out where I insulted Badger directly then? I mean if your going to claim that in this instance then point to it.

I have stopped calling people d*cks, stupid, etc. and conformed to the rules of attacking peoples posts and not them. So now are the rules just going to change?

[Wonkish1]

Trust me Wonkish, there are plenty of Democrats that are wildly unpopular on this forum as well.

This forum is very cliqueish and you're clearly not in it.  It happens to a lot of posters... I used to whine and bitch about it a lot and all it did was make people start hating me... so I just gave up.

I think the problem is his constant insults, not our cliquishness.

Because he called someone stupid?

Xahar, you're stupid.

I didn't even call Badger stupid. I called Badger's post stupid. I've been mod'ed numerous times now for calling someone stupid and I have done my best to stop it. But look at how free you feel to call Xahar stupid without recourse. I can't touch that without getting at least 3 infraction points.

Again my case is just being made for me right now.

[Lief]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

So does that mean you want to be held to the standard that attacking someone's post(and not the person) is fair game? If you do agree to that I'll be more than willing to go back through your post history and report all of them that fit in that criteria.

Is that a threat?

[Wonkish1]

I mean I even got mod'ed a little bit ago for saying "The 2 crazies are going at it. I'm going to get a beer and a popcorn."

This post that I received in the OP is the straw that broke the camels back. There would be a ton of people gone from these forums if they were held to these standards.

[Wonkish1]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

So does that mean you want to be held to the standard that attacking someone's post(and not the person) is fair game? If you do agree to that I'll be more than willing to go back through your post history and report all of them that fit in that criteria.

Is that a threat?

No its a question. If you agree with this standard being applied to people then I'll oblige you and do it for you. If you don't agree with this standard then there is no reason for me to do that then is there?

[Lief]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

So does that mean you want to be held to the standard that attacking someone's post(and not the person) is fair game? If you do agree to that I'll be more than willing to go back through your post history and report all of them that fit in that criteria.

Is that a threat?

No its a question. If you agree with this standard being applied to people then I'll oblige you and do it for you. If you don't agree with this standard then there is no reason for me to do that then is there?

I'm not sure I like your tone, friend.

[Wonkish1]

Which moderator was it?

Mr. Moderate

Well, look, the word "moderate" is right there in his name! I think we should defer to his judgment on this one.

So does that mean you want to be held to the standard that attacking someone's post(and not the person) is fair game? If you do agree to that I'll be more than willing to go back through your post history and report all of them that fit in that criteria.

Is that a threat?

No its a question. If you agree with this standard being applied to people then I'll oblige you and do it for you. If you don't agree with this standard then there is no reason for me to do that then is there?

I'm not sure I like your tone, friend.

I'm not sure I like your inability to answer a specific question, buddy!