Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 01:46:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: ag)
| | |-+  ECRI again sticking to its guns - double's down again on its recession call
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: ECRI again sticking to its guns - double's down again on its recession call  (Read 1640 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27831
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2012, 12:47:41 am »
Ignore

Well, let's go through you assertions one at a time.

First, of course, to you, any disagreement from a consecative is ipso facto "childish."

While I do find most of your arguments to be childish, I consider you to be not a typical conservative, but a romantic reactionary who wishes to return us to a past that never was.

Quote
Second, lets examine your disingenous statement about aggregate spending "over the long term."  John Maynard Keynes, when it was pointed out that the polcies he advocated would destroy the economy "over the long term," responded that 'over the long term, we're all dead.'  So, just how long is the "long term" you talk about?  Decades?  Centuries?

I should have know better than to preempt your fault-finding, since you consistently act to find fault with anyone who doesn't accept your narrow view of the world.

By "long-term"  I meant "on average without being so bound to dogma that for example, when the economy goes bad and previously agreed to counter-cyclical spending kicks in, there's no requirement to cut spending elsewhere to fund what the unemployment insurance fund was established to take care of in the first place.  (Note that I am not referring to the extensions in unemployment insurance that were put in place after the fact.  Those should have been offset elsewhere in the budget, not simply added to the Federal debt.)

Quote
Third, yes I know that you are enamored with more and higher taxes.  For you a day with out more taxes is "economically damaging" since you believe in more and more taxes as a goal in and of themselves.

Yawn.  Your repeated screeching of this untruth is not worth rebutting yet again.

Quote
Fourth, thank you for adding the "carbon tax" as another example of you desire for more and higher taxes.

Only someone either deficient in reading ability or with no regard for the truth could possibly twist "Any new taxes, such as a carbon tax, need to be paired with offsetting cuts in other taxes," into a desire for higher taxes.  That statement expressed a desire for shifting the basis of taxation to a different source, not a desire for increasing the total tax burden.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 12:51:41 am by Cheesy Grits »Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2012, 11:55:47 am »
Ignore

Well, let's go through you assertions one at a time.

First, of course, to you, any disagreement from a consecative is ipso facto "childish."

While I do find most of your arguments to be childish, I consider you to be not a typical conservative, but a romantic reactionary who wishes to return us to a past that never was.

Quote
Second, lets examine your disingenous statement about aggregate spending "over the long term."  John Maynard Keynes, when it was pointed out that the polcies he advocated would destroy the economy "over the long term," responded that 'over the long term, we're all dead.'  So, just how long is the "long term" you talk about?  Decades?  Centuries?

I should have know better than to preempt your fault-finding, since you consistently act to find fault with anyone who doesn't accept your narrow view of the world.

By "long-term"  I meant "on average without being so bound to dogma that for example, when the economy goes bad and previously agreed to counter-cyclical spending kicks in, there's no requirement to cut spending elsewhere to fund what the unemployment insurance fund was established to take care of in the first place.  (Note that I am not referring to the extensions in unemployment insurance that were put in place after the fact.  Those should have been offset elsewhere in the budget, not simply added to the Federal debt.)

Quote
Third, yes I know that you are enamored with more and higher taxes.  For you a day with out more taxes is "economically damaging" since you believe in more and more taxes as a goal in and of themselves.

Yawn.  Your repeated screeching of this untruth is not worth rebutting yet again.

Quote
Fourth, thank you for adding the "carbon tax" as another example of you desire for more and higher taxes.

Only someone either deficient in reading ability or with no regard for the truth could possibly twist "Any new taxes, such as a carbon tax, need to be paired with offsetting cuts in other taxes," into a desire for higher taxes.  That statement expressed a desire for shifting the basis of taxation to a different source, not a desire for increasing the total tax burden.

Well, lets see,

First, of course YOU consider any argument for freedom to be "childish" s you are merely a proponent of more and more government.  You would have others believe that a "typical consercative" want a bigger government (and less freedom), and only a "reactionary" would want less government.

Second, despite a lengthy and pointless diatribe, you did NOT answer my point on your definition of "the long term."

Third, I seem to recall that YOU extracted points when someone else used the term "screeching."  so, do such points apply to you?  Hmm.

Fourth, aside from reinstating taxes which previously existed on your leftists buddies in the film industries, you are in general favor of more and higher taxes.

 
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27831
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2012, 12:45:34 am »
Ignore

CARL, why do you keep advocating increasing the deficit?  Do you consider the situation that Greece has found itself to be in to be what the United States to aspire to?

Even if tax levels remain where they are now let alone go down, we need to cut spending, and you have consistently refused to spell out spending cuts that would come even close to doing that.  Granted, few politicians are willing to contradict the myth that many voters believe, that there is a painless way to cut spending. Paul Ryan is a prominent exception though he oversells what he is offering and downplays the impact his proposed cuts would have.  But that is to be expected from politicians. At least he is offering something specific, which is more than you do.

(Incidentally, in at least one aspect, I think Ryan is not being aggressive enough in cutting spending.  His proposal has the Social Security retirement age continue its current slow rate of increase of one month every two years til it reaches age 70 instead of the current age 67 it is heading to.  I favor having that rate of increase be one month every year.)

BTW, since you insist on a arbitrary specific time frame for "long term", how about somewhere in the range of two gross to five gross fortnights?  A gross fortnight sounds about right for "medium term" while trying to project economic trends beyond five gross fortnights is very much a fool's errand.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2012, 02:11:07 pm »
Ignore

CARL, why do you keep advocating increasing the deficit?  Do you consider the situation that Greece has found itself to be in to be what the United States to aspire to?

Even if tax levels remain where they are now let alone go down, we need to cut spending, and you have consistently refused to spell out spending cuts that would come even close to doing that.  Granted, few politicians are willing to contradict the myth that many voters believe, that there is a painless way to cut spending. Paul Ryan is a prominent exception though he oversells what he is offering and downplays the impact his proposed cuts would have.  But that is to be expected from politicians. At least he is offering something specific, which is more than you do.

(Incidentally, in at least one aspect, I think Ryan is not being aggressive enough in cutting spending.  His proposal has the Social Security retirement age continue its current slow rate of increase of one month every two years til it reaches age 70 instead of the current age 67 it is heading to.  I favor having that rate of increase be one month every year.)

BTW, since you insist on a arbitrary specific time frame for "long term", how about somewhere in the range of two gross to five gross fortnights?  A gross fortnight sounds about right for "medium term" while trying to project economic trends beyond five gross fortnights is very much a fool's errand.

“Two gross to five gross fortnights”

Hmm.

A fortnight is two weeks.

While I have seen the term “gross” used in other measurements, I have never seen it used in time measurements.  Can you translate it into standard (generally accepted) time measurements?
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27831
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2012, 03:18:42 pm »
Ignore

“Two gross to five gross fortnights”

Hmm.

A fortnight is two weeks.

While I have seen the term “gross” used in other measurements, I have never seen it used in time measurements.  Can you translate it into standard (generally accepted) time measurements?

A gross is a dozen dozen and as far as I know has no other numerical meaning.  I won't do the math for you as you might want the practice if you ever want to work out a plan to deal with the deficit.

On second thought, no reason to make you practice for something I doubt you'll ever do.

A gross fortnight is 2016 days or approximately 5˝ years.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines