I thought tax cuts lowered govt income liberals?? What gives?

[valvano]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZgwyLsWjDDc

As Reagan proved and now W has proved...
let people keep MORE of the money they earn, the economy will grow, and tax revenues will increase.....

Of course, you liberals still oposed to tax cuts are still welcome to send in more than what you owe to the IRS... :D

[sam i am]

I'm no Clinton fan, but didn't he prove this all to be wrong?

Good post valvano!

Clinton did NOT prove this to be all wrong. Tax receipts went DOWN every single year of Clinton's budgets when measured from the tax rates he inherited. He just spread out taxes enough and the Republicans reined in spending enough, that we spent less than we brought in. Of course, to be truly serious, none of this is a "real" surplus, because the Social Security surplus masks the true deficit....but, i digress....

[D_Raay]

Good post valvano!

Clinton did NOT prove this to be all wrong. Tax receipts went DOWN every single year of Clinton's budgets when measured from the tax rates he inherited. He just spread out taxes enough and the Republicans reined in spending enough, that we spent less than we brought in. Of course, to be truly serious, none of this is a "real" surplus, because the Social Security surplus masks the true deficit....but, i digress....
Please don't encourage the trolls. If he could actually back this up with his own words I would be dumbstruck.

[sam i am]

Please don't encourage the trolls. If he could actually back this up with his own words I would be dumbstruck.

Sorry, D_Raay....momentary lapse. I don't think valvano's bad though. He's a bit dialectical, but he's impassioned for sure.

[EN[i]GMA]

Sorry, D_Raay....momentary lapse. I don't think valvano's bad though. He's a bit dialectical, but he's impassioned for sure.

He wouldn't know a Laffer Curve if it bit him in the ass.

He doesn't know the economics behind it.

[valvano]

you dont have to be a genius to know that people know best what to do with their own money that the work to earn instead of having to turn it over to the govt


but I do have a BA in Bus Mgt and a BA in Economics FYI and am pursuing a post graduated degree in Transportation on the side (but going very slowly)

[EN[i]GMA]

you dont have to be a genius to know that people know best what to do with their own money that the work to earn instead of having to turn it over to the govt


but I do have a BA in Bus Mgt and a BA in Economics FYI and am pursuing a post graduated degree in Transportation on the side (but going very slowly)

Fair enough.

[QueenAdrock]

I won't add anything to this, it's perfect!


Sorry, valvano. But if you receive support from gmsisko, any and all credibility is lost. :(

[valvano]

Sorry, valvano. But if you receive support from gmsisko, any and all credibility is lost. :(

Yeah, just like you lost a lot of credibility the way UMD lost to Clemson this year at the ACC Tourney in DC.........

anybody, and I mean anybody associated with College Park was stained after that loss....truly sad..... :(

[marsdaddy]

Clinton did NOT prove this to be all wrong. Tax receipts went DOWN every single year of Clinton's budgets when measured from the tax rates he inherited. He just spread out taxes enough and the Republicans reined in spending enough, that we spent less than we brought in. Of course, to be truly serious, none of this is a "real" surplus, because the Social Security surplus masks the true deficit....but, i digress....But he did prove that reining in deficit spending is best for the economy, right?

[catatonic]

Why does everyone always forget the poor? They need a 24-hour jobline, especially the homeless. It's our duty to help them, whether we're helping them help themselves or just helping them get by.

[sam i am]

Why does everyone always forget the poor? They need a 24-hour jobline, especially the homeless. It's our duty to help them, whether we're helping them help themselves or just helping them get by.

We conservatives never "forget the poor." We just want to give them REAL jobs, not created by the government, so they have the OPPORTUNITY to make a better life for themselves.

Our duty is to give them opportunity, not a hand out, but a hand up. That's REAL compassion...

[sam i am]

But he did prove that reining in deficit spending is best for the economy, right?

Nope. He proved that reining in spending, PERIOD, was best for the economy. There is SO much rampant waste in the Federal government that we could cut most departments, bring the size of the bureaucracy down significantly, and have a MUCH leaner, more efficient government that would NOT eat up such a large percentage of tax revenues. We could have Social Security remain funded ad infinitum if we took some of these steps....

[sam i am]

so what is the war in Iraq?

a freebie?

Nope, it's an investment. Invest in the trial of liberty and freedom now for a multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-factional, multi-religious society in Iraq and Afghanistan while killing off those extremists who most detest liberty and freedom (especially for women).

Use this shining example to PROVE that a better system can work, get out; then reap the benefits of free trade and strong, DEMOCRATIC, allies in an extremely important area of the world.

Sounds a bit complex, but Bush has never been accused of being "simple," has he? Oh, wait...probably....oh well....just like before the last 2 elections.....keep underestimating him (or "misunderestimating" him as he likes to say :rolleyes: ) and we'll see who gets validated by the judgement of history....

[sam i am]

sorry, but my pessimistic view of this war as thousands increasingly get killed every month doesn't sound like an investment in anything but death

liberty is not a smart bomb, a suicide bomber nor a lie that kills

Sorry you are so pessimistic. I guess our optimism needs a foil. Investment in the long-term is just as viable as investment in the short term. Social Security is a good example of long-term investing, even if it has been a wealth-redistribution plan since the beginning and has cost untold millions their otherwise unfettered utilization of their own hard-earned money.

Liberty is flourishing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have both conducted elections with large majorities of the pouplation participating DESPITE the bombings, threats, and "lies" :rolleyes: that started it all. Isn't it more empowering for you to believe and see that things can and will get better than focusing on "death" and morbidism?

This is not to discount the lives lost, but those soldiers from the USA were at least all volunteers. They knew, when they signed up, that they may have to lay down their lives for their country. Again, long-term, their sacrifices will enable the US to have many LESS lives lost due to terrorists focusing on Iraq and not on targets of civilians in the USA.

I know it's a hard concept to grasp and embrace, but I am personally very proud of the sacrifices we have made and the safety (thus far) in the US from terrorist attacks since 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I think the investmesnt is honorable, worthwhile, and, long-term, will prove beneficial to not only those countries involved, but the whole area and the world.

Sorry I'm not a pessimist....

[marsdaddy]

Nope. He proved that reining in spending, PERIOD, was best for the economy. There is SO much rampant waste in the Federal government that we could cut most departments, bring the size of the bureaucracy down significantly, and have a MUCH leaner, more efficient government that would NOT eat up such a large percentage of tax revenues. We could have Social Security remain funded ad infinitum if we took some of these steps....Clinton and Congress cut federal spending? I doubt that. Maybe as a % of GDP, but GDP was the richest ever.

And you said he spread out taxes: yes, he made tax rates more equitable across the board. Right now, the richest have the biggest tax break % wise, compared with the middle and lower classes. Clearly, this retards the economy as the largest class of people actually have less spending money.

Clinton's presidency was marked by one of the most successful economies in history. Total taxes collected provided a large surplus. And he didn't piss it away on a tax break -- Bush did that as soon as he took office. He did take steps to pay back Social Security and he would have done it if it wasn't for that meddling, Christian fundalmentalist, former coke addict and his cronies.

Clinton worked to focus spending on things that would support the economy, whether it was growing or retracting -- job training, education, and healthcare. Of course, he was thwarted with healthcare and the positive steps he took have since been reversed.

Yes, there is rampant waste in the federal government -- the definition of bureacracy, I think. But investing in our society means helping those at the bottom find a way to provide for themselves and their families so that their heirs are no longer at the bottom. Also, making sure that the bottom is liveable. That requires a federal government to provide public services.

There is an economic theory that if the bottom of society raises their standard of living, those above them will have their SOL raised, too. I guess it's the opposite of trickle down.

How does killing innocent Iraqis and having our troops killed -- people who are generally from poorer families and enlisted during peace for the college $ -- invest in our society? Democracy may or may not be the best choice for a country to make. The USA, Britian, and the rest of the West should not be in the "spreading Democracy" business. The investment will pay off with more terrorists and anti-Democracy.

[sam i am]

The war is just one step closer to making a New World Order. People have been duped to believe it's for freedom. Since when was my freedom here in the US threatened by Iraq? I don't support the efforts of the troops at all.

Even if your worst nightmare comes true and there is such a thing as a "New World Order," how bad can it be?

Wouldn't you rather have the world run by Americans with at least a Constitutional government coalesced into a Republic? Isn't it better than Fascism, Communism, Socialism, or most other -isms I can think of?

This is strictly a rhetorical question, but if you want to answer it, I'll have a philosophical debate with you about it....

[sam i am]

Clinton and Congress cut federal spending? I doubt that. Maybe as a % of GDP, but GDP was the richest ever.

And you said he spread out taxes: yes, he made tax rates more equitable across the board. Right now, the richest have the biggest tax break % wise, compared with the middle and lower classes. Clearly, this retards the economy as the largest class of people actually have less spending money.

Clinton's presidency was marked by one of the most successful economies in history. Total taxes collected provided a large surplus. And he didn't piss it away on a tax break -- Bush did that as soon as he took office. He did take steps to pay back Social Security and he would have done it if it wasn't for that meddling, Christian fundalmentalist, former coke addict and his cronies.

Clinton worked to focus spending on things that would support the economy, whether it was growing or retracting -- job training, education, and healthcare. Of course, he was thwarted with healthcare and the positive steps he took have since been reversed.

Yes, there is rampant waste in the federal government -- the definition of bureacracy, I think. But investing in our society means helping those at the bottom find a way to provide for themselves and their families so that their heirs are no longer at the bottom. Also, making sure that the bottom is liveable. That requires a federal government to provide public services.

There is an economic theory that if the bottom of society raises their standard of living, those above them will have their SOL raised, too. I guess it's the opposite of trickle down.

How does killing innocent Iraqis and having our troops killed -- people who are generally from poorer families and enlisted during peace for the college $ -- invest in our society? Democracy may or may not be the best choice for a country to make. The USA, Britian, and the rest of the West should not be in the "spreading Democracy" business. The investment will pay off with more terrorists and anti-Democracy.

Ok Marsdaddy - there are so many things wrong with your counterargument, I'll address them one by one. Do me the favor of replying in kind or it won't be pretty... :)

I never said Clinton and Congress cut federal spending. I said they "reined it in." This means, in modern zero baseline accounting, that they slowed the RATE OF GROWTH in entitlements. Instead of the rate of growth going up 5% per year, they "cut" it to 3%. This slowed spending enough for revenues to catch up. Don't believe me? Look it up...

On your second point : what is your definition of "equitable?" Again, tax receipts went DOWN. Those who have money will pay their fair share, but will find ways to hide their incomes when tax rates become confiscatory. It has happened throughout modern tax history. That's why Kennedy CUT taxes and tax receipts SOARED. Same thing under Reagan.

On your third point : total taxes collected DID NOT provide a large surplus. The slowing of rates of increase in federal programs closed the gap some. Social Security "surpluses" still provided the difference in making an "actual" surplus.

On your fifth point : "Clinton worked to focus..." What the heck does that MEAN? His INTENTIONS were good? Get back to reality. He implemented NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and went along with the GOP to cut back the rates of increase in federal programs. Healthcare rates skyrocketed under Clinton and he did NOTHING to stop them, at least Bush has implemented Medicare drug cards that HAVE ALREADY lowered rates on many prescription drugs. I work in this field, so I see it EVERYDAY.

On your sixth point : "That requires a federal government to provide public services..." How did this country ever SURVIVE without the nanny-state federal government to save us from ourselves? This is the biggest crock of your whole thesis. People paid for services rendered WITHOUT a federal intermediary for 200 years prior to the metastasizing of the federal bureaucracy. In the original makeup of the Federal Government were 2 departments : State and Treasury. Interior did not come along until 1849, then Justice in 1870 (prior to that Federal Courts were very sparse), Agriculture in 1889 (before that farmers fed this nation without the feds for 250 years going back to the original colonization), Commerce in 1903, Labor in 1913, Defense in 1947, Health and Human Services in 1953, Housing and Urban Development in 1965, then Transportation in 1966, Energy in 1977, Education not until 1979, Vetereans Affairs in 1988 and Homeland Security in 2002.

What this list proves is that the country got along JUST FINE without the "services" that the Fed "supplies." Plus, we get back WAY less than we send to Washington, DC, by having it go through more hands. Without most of those Departments, we'd have enough money to pay off the deficit many times over, and give EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN multi-thousands of dollars in one fell swoop. Before the Fed grew so large, local, county and state governments took care of the "poor," which, by the way is not a static group. So, next time get your facts straight.

On your seventh point : the funds to "give" to the "poor" comes from the hard work and labor of the "rich." We have laws in this country that are confiscatory when it comes to inheriting money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, et al are amongst the highest givers to charities in the world. All the time, they pay their taxes to support the Fed as well. Before the Fed, in addition to much more local governments with far more oversight and accountability to their local constituencies, charities by Churches and Mosques and Temples, etc., in addition to individuals of conscience (ever heard of Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.?) covered the poor. People in the COMMUNITY provided for those in need. Now, we expect the Fed to do it, but they have done a PISS POOR job. I say, let's give it back to us to do it and we'll prove our capabilities.

Finally, why shouldn't we be in the "spreading Democracy" business, as you so sneeringly put it? Aren't liberty and freedom the best ideals we can aspire to? Why should people be stuck with Dictatorships or Fascism or Socialism or Communism. Why should women and children be repressed and brutalized? Why should we allow this in order modern day and age when we have the capacity and the will to make the world a better place? Answer that, with your pessimistic outlook on life. I'll take optimism and doing our best to leave a better legacy to our ancestors than your pessimism anyday.

It keeps me much healthier to be optimistic than pessimistic... try it.... you may like it...

[sam i am]

Good lord! I was being facetious....

Didn't you read the "rhetorical" part of the answer?

[Schmeltz]

Sorry I'm not a pessimist....


You'd do better to apologize for being a dreamer. This (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq) is your "shining example" of spreading Western values - something makes me doubt that you'd enjoy the particular version of liberty that your "heroic" troops (I wonder how proud you are of the Abu Ghraib photo shoot?) have brought to Iraq. Is bombing the shit out of people and making their country into a playground for Islamofascism your idea of making the world a better place? You're confusing optimism with delusion.

[sam i am]

You'd do better to apologize for being a dreamer. This (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq) is your "shining example" of spreading Western values - something makes me doubt that you'd enjoy the particular version of liberty that your "heroic" troops (I wonder how proud you are of the Abu Ghraib photo shoot?) have brought to Iraq. Is bombing the shit out of people and making their country into a playground for Islamofascism your idea of making the world a better place? You're confusing optimism with delusion.

Suicide bombers cause death and destruction now. Saddam killed off hundreds of thousands before we showed up. Total Iraqis killed by US troops during the entire time we've been there (non combatants)?

Curious to see if you'll answer this....

[Schmeltz]

Suicide bombers cause death and destruction now. Saddam killed off hundreds of thousands before we showed up.


So the coalition occupation is on an equal footing with Saddam? Out of the frying pan, into the fire? A surprising admission.


Total Iraqis killed by US troops during the entire time we've been there (non combatants)?


Of course Tommy Franks famously declared that the Pentagon "doesn't do body counts" (how convenient, to simply refuse to assess the price exacted on the civilian population in return for its terror-ridden "liberty"), but iraqbodycount.net (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) puts the figure at somewhere between 22 000 and 26 000. And there was also the infamous Lancet survey that estimated Iraqi civilian war dead at over 100 000, but I understand there's at least some degree of uncertainty about those results.

Bottom line: if this is your version of freedom, I can only hope you never take it into your head to bestow it on my own country.

[marsdaddy]

Ok Marsdaddy - there are so many things wrong with your counterargument, I'll address them one by one. Do me the favor of replying in kind or it won't be pretty... :) It won't be pretty, either way.

I never said Clinton and Congress cut federal spending. I said they "reined it in." This means, in modern zero baseline accounting, that they slowed the RATE OF GROWTH in entitlements. Instead of the rate of growth going up 5% per year, they "cut" it to 3%. This slowed spending enough for revenues to catch up. Don't believe me? Look it up... Slowed spending for revenues to catch up?! Tail wagging dog? It was the most successful economy in the history of our country. Even bureaucrats couldn't have spent that much, that fast.

On your second point : what is your definition of "equitable?" Again, tax receipts went DOWN. Those who have money will pay their fair share, but will find ways to hide their incomes when tax rates become confiscatory. It has happened throughout modern tax history. That's why Kennedy CUT taxes and tax receipts SOARED. Same thing under Reagan. Equitable is fair for everyone. The facts that people who have more can find ways to hide their incomes is not equitable. You got me on your Kennedy tax cut knowledge, but Reagan and Dubya have tried cutting taxes and we've gone through recessions both times. Under Reagan we had the high unemployment rates and high interest rates, curves that usually work in opposite directions to stabilize the economy. Something tells me the rich still hide their income, tax cuts or not.

On your third point : total taxes collected DID NOT provide a large surplus. The slowing of rates of increase in federal programs closed the gap some. Social Security "surpluses" still provided the difference in making an "actual" surplus.Hmm, I thought it was the growing economy that allowed the decrease in spending to be less painful. Tax receipts...

On your fifth point : "Clinton worked to focus..." What the heck does that MEAN? His INTENTIONS were good? Get back to reality. He implemented NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and went along with the GOP to cut back the rates of increase in federal programs. Healthcare rates skyrocketed under Clinton and he did NOTHING to stop them, at least Bush has implemented Medicare drug cards that HAVE ALREADY lowered rates on many prescription drugs. I work in this field, so I see it EVERYDAY. You've got to be kidding, right? Yes, I pussyfooted around the healthcare thing. Clinton's healthcare plan was vigorously fought by the Insurance and Pharma companies. Dubya's was not. I wonder why?

Medicare drug cards have done little to lower rates on Rx. There was a 10-30% discount on the most expensive drugs, but previously a 10-30% inflation adjustment before the implementation of the cards. AARP says the net effect on prices was 0. And the Rx benefit that is coming next year does even less with regards to rates. The Medicare Modernization act (MMA) includes a clause where the price of Rx cannot be negotiated. So how will the costs come down? They won't. I also work in this field and see it everyday.

What will happen is this program will force more deficit spending.

On your sixth point : "That requires a federal government to provide public services..." How did this country ever SURVIVE without the nanny-state federal government to save us from ourselves? This is the biggest crock of your whole thesis. People paid for services rendered WITHOUT a federal intermediary for 200 years prior to the metastasizing of the federal bureaucracy. In the original makeup of the Federal Government were 2 departments : State and Treasury. Interior did not come along until 1849, then Justice in 1870 (prior to that Federal Courts were very sparse), Agriculture in 1889 (before that farmers fed this nation without the feds for 250 years going back to the original colonization), Commerce in 1903, Labor in 1913, Defense in 1947, Health and Human Services in 1953, Housing and Urban Development in 1965, then Transportation in 1966, Energy in 1977, Education not until 1979, Vetereans Affairs in 1988 and Homeland Security in 2002. I guess FDR was a big loser and the New Deal wasn't a deal at all? You're in a sinking minority in your opinions, here. But whatever, you're entitled. I agree that there are too many departments and commissions, and bureaucrats, but I also believe that the government can be run right -- guess that makes me the optimist?

A couple of questions though: How can public education, military, police, fire, etc. exist without federal and state governments providing them? And how can you support Dubya, who has actually grown the federal government in the past 5 years?

What this list proves is that the country got along JUST FINE without the "services" that the Fed "supplies." Plus, we get back WAY less than we send to Washington, DC, by having it go through more hands. Without most of those Departments, we'd have enough money to pay off the deficit many times over, and give EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN multi-thousands of dollars in one fell swoop. Before the Fed grew so large, local, county and state governments took care of the "poor," which, by the way is not a static group. So, next time get your facts straight. I think what that list proves is you have a lot of time on your hands. Also, I don't know about that "taking care of the poor" comment but if that were the case, why the New Deal?

On your seventh point : the funds to "give" to the "poor" comes from the hard work and labor of the "rich." We have laws in this country that are confiscatory when it comes to inheriting money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, et al are amongst the highest givers to charities in the world. All the time, they pay their taxes to support the Fed as well. Before the Fed, in addition to much more local governments with far more oversight and accountability to their local constituencies, charities by Churches and Mosques and Temples, etc., in addition to individuals of conscience (ever heard of Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.?) covered the poor. People in the COMMUNITY provided for those in need. Now, we expect the Fed to do it, but they have done a PISS POOR job. I say, let's give it back to us to do it and we'll prove our capabilities. Hard work and labor are a part of it, but so is luck, education, and opportunities. Also, if there are a limited number of resources, what the rich "take" means less for the poor. There is a price to live in this country of ours and it's taxes. The more you make, the more you have to pay. 70% of $1M is still a lot better than 80% of $10K.

Giving to charities is arguably better than the government. I mean, the best charities have 13% administrative fees -- I'm guess government is probably 40-50%? Still charity is not enough. Buffet, Gates, Rockefeller, et. al.'s benevolance is at least somewhat motivated by hiding income, right? Yes, I know - cynical.

Finally, why shouldn't we be in the "spreading Democracy" business, as you so sneeringly put it? Aren't liberty and freedom the best ideals we can aspire to? Why should people be stuck with Dictatorships or Fascism or Socialism or Communism. Why should women and children be repressed and brutalized? Why should we allow this in order modern day and age when we have the capacity and the will to make the world a better place? Answer that, with your pessimistic outlook on life. I'll take optimism and doing our best to leave a better legacy to our ancestors than your pessimism anyday.We shouldn't be in the spreading Democracy business because we're actually not. I mean, don't you see the hypocrisy? Our big business is lining up to rebuild Iraq. Our government is ready to reap the rewards of their oil.

Oh, and why aren't we going into Africa, North Korea, and other more oppressive countries, if we are so altruistic?

It keeps me much healthier to be optimistic than pessimistic... try it.... you may like it...What you call optimism, I see as arrogance.

[Qdrop]

I know it's a hard concept to grasp and embrace, but I am personally very proud of the sacrifices we have made and the safety (thus far) in the US from [...] and Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to us. ever. Iraq doesn't even have connections to entities that are a threat to us.

I think the investmesnt is honorable, worthwhile, and, long-term, will prove beneficial to not only those countries involved, but the whole area and the world.
i do believe that secular democracy and capitalism IS the best condition for mass populations.
and i do have hope that setting up Iraq as such could have a powerful effect on that region of the world (and already has) as far as promoting secular democracy.

what i don't like are the lies that were told to proceed with that agenda....time will tell if it causes more harm than good.

Even if your worst nightmare comes true and there is such a thing as a "New World Order," how bad can it be?

Wouldn't you rather have the world run by Americans with at least a Constitutional government coalesced into a Republic? Isn't it better than Fascism, Communism, Socialism, or most other -isms I can think of?

This is strictly a rhetorical question,

rhetorical or not....that is a disturbing and ignorant statement.

"how bad can it be?"
are you serious? you should be able to answer your own question.

do you really think that any governing entity that had an agenda for world domination TRULY has a constitutional republic or democracy in mind?

come on now.

[59 Chrystie St.]

Jimmy V has just rolled over.

[Documad]

I can't believe that anyone would think the poor were better off when the USA was run by robber barons.

Plus with the workers dying so much earlier due to dangerous work places, slums, and lack of medical care no one had to worry about who would support them in their old age.

[sam i am]

what i don't like are the lies that were told to proceed with that agenda....time will tell if it causes more harm than good.

rhetorical or not....that is a disturbing and ignorant statement.

"how bad can it be?"
are you serious? you should be able to answer your own question.

do you really think that any governing entity that had an agenda for world domination TRULY has a constitutional republic or democracy in mind?

come on now.

Ok - I still think the "lies" were not deliberate, but if you all want to attribute some nefarious peupose to them, you can. I feel confident (naively? :o ) that those who made statements and the case for war in Iraq believed the intelligence they were given.

Sorry for the rhetorical query - it was strictly as an intellectual exercise, but I can see clearly now that there will be NONE of that. So, dismaedly, I shuffle off this particular part of the thread.... :(

[sam i am]

I can't believe that anyone would think the poor were better off when the USA was run by robber barons.

Plus with the workers dying so much earlier due to dangerous work places, slums, and lack of medical care no one had to worry about who would support them in their old age.

Documad - again, sorry we don't speak the same language : English must be difficult for you....

"robber barons?" bwaahahahahaha!

Who FOUNDED this country? Who ran it into the greatest modern civilization? FDR? Please. Talk about confiscating freedom.

Workers dying so much earlier "due to dangerous work places?" Data to back your argument, please.

Workers dying so much earlier due to "slums?" Data to back your argument, please.

Workers dying so much earlier due to "lack of medical care?" Data and examples to back your argument, please.

I get so tired of people like you coming on here and spaeking in such broad generalities without anything to back it up. I certainly would not want YOU PMing me, either. Wish you had some integrity to not say the things you accuse me of.... :rolleyes:

[marsdaddy]

Workers dying so much earlier due to "lack of medical care?" Data and examples to back your argument, please.
Is there actually a debate about life expectancies being almost 20 years longer than they were in the 40's?
I get so tired of people like you coming on here and spaeking in such broad generalities without anything to back it up. I certainly would not want YOU PMing me, either. Wish you had some integrity to not say the things you accuse me of.... :rolleyes:I guess you didn't respond to my line by line post because of the broad generalities? :confused:

Regardless, can you answer my question about supporting Bush, even though the federal government has grown while he's been president?

[Documad]

LOL!!! (and yes, I mean "LOL") In my time here I've pissed a lot of people off but I've had trouble understanding exactly two of them. :)

If I recite well-established bits of common knowledge that I've consistently heard since high school I'm not going to provide a citation. If you want to believe the earth is flat and that Burr beat Jefferson or whatever, that's fine.

If I come up with a relatively new theory that's based upon my personal analysis, I'll say it's my personal opinion or cite facts that support it. You can take it all for what it's worth. Lots of the silliest theories I ever read had tons of footnotes to legit and spurious sources. Anyone who puts a lot of stock in cites to webpages will not be impressed with what I say. I can live with that. :p


THEORY: My personal opinion, based upon the sum total of all my education and reading for fun, is that the plight of the average US citizen in the 1990s was better than in any earlier decade. I suspect that the average US citizen is worse off today than in the 1990s but I don't feel as strongly about that.

[EN[i]GMA]

If I recite well-established bits of common knowledge that I've consistently heard since high school I'm not going to provide a citation.

Like Jesus being real?


If you want to believe the earth is flat and that Burr beat Jefferson or whatever, that's fine.

Like Jesus being real?


If I come up with a relatively new theory that's based upon my personal analysis, I'll say it's my personal opinion or cite facts that support it. You can take it all for what it's worth. Lots of the silliest theories I ever read had tons of footnotes to legit and spurious sources. Anyone who puts a lot of stock in cites to webpages will not be impressed with what I say. I can live with that. :p

I think he was looking for studies, not 'websites'.


THEORY: My personal opinion, based upon the sum total of all my education and reading for fun, is that the plight of the average US citizen in the 1990s was better than in any earlier decade. I suspect that the average US citizen is worse off today than in the 1990s but I don't feel as strongly about that.

I think Jesus rode a unicorn into heaven.

I think 9 angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[Documad]

Yeah, I really don't think I need to cite a study when making a joke. If you don't think my joke is funny, that's cool. If you don't already know about the plight of the working class during the industrial revolution, nothing I'm going to cite on a message board is going to enlighten you.

I'm comfortable that I understand the difference between general historical facts v. religious belief. But then I went to public schools before the fundamentalists took them over. I was so fucking lucky!

[sam i am]

If I recite well-established bits of common knowledge that I've consistently heard since high school I'm not going to provide a citation. If you want to believe the earth is flat and that Burr beat Jefferson or whatever, that's fine.

I felt the same way until you wanted me to back up everything I said. So, you're self-righteous "I recite 'well-established' bits of common knowledge..." is a crock. Don't question my well-established bits of common knowledge and I won't challenge yours.

Too bad, Documad, I thought you'd be a worthy intellectual opponent, but you've only proven yourself to be full of crap.

[sam i am]

Yeah, I really don't think I need to cite a study when making a joke. If you don't think my joke is funny, that's cool. If you don't already know about the plight of the working class during the industrial revolution, nothing I'm going to cite on a message board is going to enlighten you.

I'm comfortable that I understand the difference between general historical facts v. religious belief. But then I went to public schools before the fundamentalists took them over. I was so fucking lucky!

Nope. You were sold short.

I went to public school too, moron.

General historical facts are my specialty, so bugger off!

[franscar]

Too bad, Documad, I thought you'd be a worthy intellectual opponent, but you've only proven yourself to be full of crap.

What's really the point of a sentence like this?

[sam i am]

What's really the point of a sentence like this?

She's badmouthed me and said I was full of crap : I simply repaid kind with kind in this case.

[Documad]

What's really the point of a sentence like this?
Thanks. :)

FYI, the ignore thing doesn't work for me if you quote him. :rolleyes:

I have no citations or studies to back me up on this, but I suspect the point is to put me in my place, but good. :p