Originally posted by shavixmirNo. I had to decide before each of the events you ask. I did decide.
What's this 'deciding before the event' then?
You mean pre-emptivly deciding something? Acting on something?
So you mean Iran should bomb the hell out of Washington tomorrow, because they suspect the US is about to do the same to them?
Don't forget that you are approaching this as a religion that you have adopted to make sense of the world.
I am old. I was there. I had to participate. I did. I chose on whether to support Pinochet. I did. I chose on whether to support the Viet Nam war. I did. I don't have opionions. I have history.
<edit> and lots of mistakes. See my thread on being "Bullet Proof".
This is exactly what I meant in that thread. Just being wrong a million times tends to inure one to reality.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat in cod's name are you blathering about?
No. I had to decide before each of the events you ask. I did decide.
Don't forget that you are approaching this as a religion that you have adopted to make sense of the world.
I am old. I was there. I had to participate. I did. I chose on whether to support Pinochet. I did. I chose on whether to support the Viet Nam war. I did. I don't have opio ...[text shortened]... tly what I meant in that thread. Just being wrong a million times tends to inure one to reality.
I chose on the Iraq war. In 1992. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on terrorism. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on Afghanistan. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on Iraq. Things didn't go my way.
However...
There's still terrorism.
There's no peace in Afghanistan.
Iraq's a bloody mess and
There were no bloody weapons of mass destruction!!!
It seems I'm proven right every single bloody time. So why don't you listen to me when I tell you what's what in the world????
Because...you are a chimp.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You want Saddam back. I'm glad he is gone.
You don't say?
Wrong about WMD. Wrong about casualties. Wrong about our ability to secure Iraq with 130,000 troops instead of the 400,000 Eric Shinseki said we would need. Wrong about our need for allies in the war. Wrong about ...[text shortened]... has been wrong a million times, and ge's "inured" to reality.
See my thread on Binary logic. In this universe, he is gone. In your's he is not gone. Those are the only two choices that the universe offers.
I'll take the elections in Jan. over Saddam shooting his rifle into the air any day. You prefer the dictator and his rifle. So?
I have never said a word about WMD. I chose to remove him because he was a slave owner.
Mike
Originally posted by shavixmirYou state the obvious and say not a single reason why it is "doomed" to remain as it is. Isn't the idea of change the idea that the future will be better?
What in cod's name are you blathering about?
I chose on the Iraq war. In 1992. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on terrorism. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on Afghanistan. Things didn't go my way.
I chose on the war on Iraq. Things didn't go my way.
However...
There's still terrorism.
There's no peace in Af ...[text shortened]... 't you listen to me when I tell you what's what in the world????
Because...you are a chimp.
Maybe it won't be. But at least I decided. I wanted to remove Saddam.
Time will tell. I think that over time, a free people in Iraq and then a free people in Saudi Arabia and then a free prople in Iran will make a better world.
I might be wrong. But I chose. I can't set and second guess the universe. All I have is "right now". The world I have chosen and helped to happen.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYes...like the free people in most of the US's wars in the last 30 years.
You state the obvious and say not a single reason why it is "doomed" to remain as it is. Isn't the idea of change the idea that the future will be better?
Maybe it won't be. But at least I decided. I wanted to remove Saddam.
Time will tell. I think that over time, a free people in Iraq and then a free people in Saudi Arabia and then a free pro ...[text shortened]... d guess the universe. All I have is "right now". The world I have chosen and helped to happen.
Originally posted by shavixmirExplain what you mean.
Yes...like the free people in most of the US's wars in the last 30 years.
I was in favor of fighting the Viet Nam war because of the Domino theory. That if Viet Nam went, so too would Cambodia and Laos.
I fervently believed that the commies would kill millions of their own people if they came to power. I thought that by opposing them in Viet Nam -- if we won, we could "impose" a lack of slaughter.
But we lost. The slaughter happened, just like the "dominos" theory said it would.
I was right to oppose that slaughter. A million dead commies. Fifty thousand innocent Vietnamese by the hand of the US. A million innocent Vietnamese by the hand of the commies. Fifty five thousand dead UN troops.
My support was not wrong. As the results will show. Unless one believes that the commie take-over would not have been as bloody. There is nothing in history to support this thesis.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI've already posted the proof, in previous posts, that the US did most of the civilian killings in Vietnam and Cambodia (up to 1975).
Explain what you mean.
I was in favor of fighting the Viet Nam war because of the Domino theory. That if Viet Nam went, so too would Cambodia and Laos.
I fervently believed that the commies would kill millions of their own people if they came to power. I thought that by opposing them in Viet Nam -- if we won, we could "impose" a lack of slaughte ...[text shortened]... mie take-over would not have been as bloody. There is nothing in history to support this thesis.
3.000.000 that's your third-way solution for you.
I hope you are pleased. It won't last long.
Tax cuts always raise government revenue.
This is demonstrably false. If the government reduces all tax rates to 0%, then government revenue equals 0. SVW, do you have some vague notion of the Laffer curve in mind? Here is a nice link (warning: for those with some knowledge of mathematics) describing it in a bit more detail.
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/Monissen.htm
Kennedy was the first, but 'every' time the US lowers taxes, net revenue increases.
Problems:
1) What is 'net revenue'? What measure are you using? Total government revenue is made up of a mulititude of subcategories (e.g. income tax revenue, sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, corporate income tax revenue, tariff revenues, surplus of government enterprises, contributions for gov't social insurance). Which categories go into your measure and why do you choose/not choose each category?
2)If by 'net' you mean total government revenue minus total government expenditures, then I'm pretty suspicious of your claim. According to the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) tables at the BEA, government expenditures have exceeded total government revenue (not including borrowing, which covers this difference), every year since 1954-2004 except the years '72,'73,'77,'78,'84,'85. Have tax rates only changed in these years? Please give the name of the table you are referencing at the IRS so that I can review it or else I will just assume you are mistaken.
3) Looks like 'partial equilibrium' analysis when 'general equilibrium' analysis is called for. Even if everytime a US President lowered taxes (again which tax rates? Income? sales? property?), your measure of 'net revenue' increased, we cannot immediately attribute this increase to the reduction of taxes outside the simple framework of partial equilibrium analysis.
Partial equilibrium analysis asks what is the effect of reducing some tax rate on 'net revenues' all else being equal. This rules out effects from anything other than the decrease the specific tax rate. In general equilibrium analysis, one allows outside factors to change as well. It may be that the increase in revenue is primarily due to something other than the decrease (e.g. while the decrease may have the effect of reducing tax revenue, population growth creates a larger tax base which swamps the effects of the tax decrease producing an overall increase in revenue.)
Sorry. Fact. Go to http://www.irs.gov/ and type in the type of chart to search. Good source for understanding fact as opposed to religious beliefs.
Agreed. The IRS is a bad place to go to understand religious beliefs. Oh, right. Always go back to the data. Which chart are you looking at?
The less government takes, the more "capital" we capitalists have to work with.
Mistake #1: You confuse the business meaning of "capital" (i.e. money) with an economists meaning of "capital" (non-labor input into production). Money is just a instrument for exchange. It is not necessarily used in the process of accumulating more capital.
Mistake #2: You assume that the government always uses the revenues inefficiently. While I agree that government run industries tend to be inefficient compared to their privitized counterparts in most markets, there exist a whole host of markets and market scenarios in which a government (here read a democratically-elected government) is more efficient. The common ones are markets for 'public goods' or where there is some significant social externality not internalized by the firms in the industry. A third case, but one in which only government intervention, not government operation, may be called for, is one in which a few firms possess significant monopoly power. The reason in these cases is that the market structure is such that firm's decisions in equilibrium are not in harmony with what is optimal for the entire economy (even including firm's profits).
Still, you are correct to point out that a reduction in (government revenue)/(GDP) is not necessarily a bad thing. We don't need the government amassing more than it needs to run these markets. I suspect much of our gov't money is spent wastefully on industries with the most lobbying power, rather than the largest share of the populaces concern.
Finally, don't read this to think that I agree with everything sasquatch is saying. Often his mistakes about economics are the same as yours only in reverse. I just like to pick on you because I generally disagree with everything you say and grow weary of your mucking up economics to support your wild eyed ideologies.
Originally posted by sasquatch672All real interesting. Really. Until the universe offers only two choices.
No no no. And I'm not "seeing" any of your threads. Here's the deal - Saddam had to be dealt with, and sooner was better than later. Which is why Bush getting up in the '03 SOTU and saying, "Iraq has attempted to acquire yello ...[text shortened]... eorge Bush is the worst president in the history of this country.
I wanted him gone. You correct me if I'm wrong. You want him back.
Those are the only two choices the universe offers.
Sorry.
I ain't too tied up in history, in the sense that you seem to think that brooding and being a powerful chimp now will change it. It won't. It happened. We now have to think of today and tomorrow. Sorry.
Originally posted by telerionYou are really long winded.
[b]Tax cuts always raise government revenue.
This is demonstrably false. If the government reduces all tax rates to 0%, then government revenue equals 0. SVW, do you have some vague notion of the Laffer curve in mind? Here is a nic ...[text shortened]... our mucking up economics to support your wild eyed ideologies.
[/b]
Every time we cut taxes, eighteen months later, the government tax revenue increases. Without exception. Ever.
<edit> Mildly amused that you ask me to do your research. Sorry. You do it. There is no way to learn if I help you.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm perfectly willing to go along with your little game SVW:
All real interesting. Really. Until the universe offers only two choices.
I wanted him gone. You correct me if I'm wrong. You want him back.
Those are the only two choices the universe offers.
Sorry.
I ain't too tied up in history, in the sense that you seem to think that brooding and being a powerful chimp now will change it. It won't. It happened. We now have to think of today and tomorrow. Sorry.
I want Bush gone. Now.
I don't care how much violence they use. The sooner the better.
I want the US to pull out of Iraq now.
I want the US to stop building nuclear weapons. Now.
I want the US to withdraw all government financied support to ANYTHING in central or Southern America. Now.
I want the US to sign the Kyoto agreement. Now.
I want the US to sign the international documentation on the rights of children. NOW.
Originally posted by shavixmirExcellent!
I'm perfectly willing to go along with your little game SVW:
I want Bush gone. Now.
I don't care how much violence they use. The sooner the better.
I want the US to pull out of Iraq now.
I want the US to stop building nuclear weapons. Now.
I want the US to withdraw all government financied support to ANYTHING in central or Southern America. N ...[text shortened]... Now.
I want the US to sign the international documentation on the rights of children. NOW.
Let's see.
I want Bush gone. Now. We disagree. We are not evil.
I don't care how much violence they use. The sooner the better. I disagree. Reason and democracy must serve for another thousand years. Then there will be a "personal Shield" force field invented that will make "law" a quaint notion. Till then, reason must rule.
I want the US to pull out of Iraq now. I want the Iraqi people to tell us when to leave. A Freely elected democratic body to tell us.
I want the US to stop building nuclear weapons. Now. I don't have an opinion. The US always goes to war disarmed. Why should the next be any different?
I want the US to withdraw all government financied support to ANYTHING in central or Southern America. Now. Why? I don't see that communism is an answer. It is all that you are sticking up for.
I want the US to sign the Kyoto agreement. Now. We are. We are more close to complying than europe is. Snark. Sorry.
I want the US to sign the international documentation on the rights of children. NOW. I want the UN to adopt MY basic rights first. Let them adopt the ten amendments to my existence first. Then we'll talk. But as long as dictators hold as much power as my government... 'fuget' 'bout it!'
You are really long winded.
You have a very short attention span. Too bad. You could have learned something. There were many, many mistakes in your post.
Every time we cut taxes, eighteen months later, the government tax revenue increases. Without exception. Ever.
Great claim. Do you have any evidence to back it up? I was led to believe you valued science.
<edit> Mildly amused that you ask me to do your research. Sorry. You do it. There is no way to learn if I help you.
I did my own research. I looked at the National Income and Production Accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It didn't jive with what you were saying. It makes me wonder if you are making stuff up. Your edit statement above (AKA 'the pcaspian research method'😉 also lends a great deal of weight to my suspicion.
In my experience when some one has a good point, and they have solid evidence to back it up, they say, "Look at this evidence. It proves my point." I wonder why it is so hard for you to reveal the chart you are referencing, unless of course you are talking BS. If you just give the name of the chart, I'm very willing to go search it down from the IRS website and consider your claim; but I have better things to do than look for a hypothetical needle in a haystack, and sorry, I just don't take things on faith.
Well, unless you find your magic chart (and I don't suspect you will), then I'll take my leave of this thread now. I can see that you have no interest in truth. Hopefully, some one else got something from my post.
<EDIT>: Just conducted another search through the IRS website. Nothing about the relationship between tax rates and 'net revenue.'
Let me take a guess. You wanted to make a claim about the history of the correlation between tax cuts and government revenue. You incorrectly used the vague term 'net revenue' and remembered hearing something somewhere about a 18 month lag between tax decreases and government revenue. Not knowing where to get evidence to support your claim, you told sasquatch to go look at the IRS website. Of course, you just assumed that the IRS would have data because they have something to do with taxes. Unfortunately, it just has forms and rules for filing taxes.
Waiting for you to prove me wrong.</edit>