Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

[cbreeden]

Upon further reading the numbers are more complicated that what I indicated, but why do you believe raising taxes would not have an impact on the deficit?



9954 always says that. In fact, he says nothing else, which is why I have him on ignore. Yet he also seems to bemoan the loss of some past America where things didn't used to be this way, which sets up sort of an odd paradox. If nothing changes, then why are things so different from how they used to be?

Now, here's a good blog post (written last year) which talks about some of the mechanics of taxes and debt from a "Research Fellow at the Research Institute of Industrial Economics" (at least, that's what his bio says).



The link:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Not being an economist myself it's hard to check on the veracity of all these claims, but taken as a whole this does have the proverbial stink of truth.

One thing I think needs to be kept in perspective relative to the debt is that we are still only just coming out of a severe economic depression. That kind of downturn -- which reduces tax receipts -- combined with more than 60 or maybe even 70% of the budget already allocated to fixed costs, is always going to lead to a ballooning debt.

The upside is that as the economy improves, which everyone thinks it will, a portion of this problem will fix itself.

Because the administration has already said it wants to use that $$$ to pay for other programs. $80B is less than a drop in the bucket when compared with $16T.

[Statler Waldorf]

No.

Well then take a course in logical reasoning, you are not allowed to appeal to standards that you set for yourself when trying to argue a logical point.

Can you give me some examples of democracies that fell for this reason?

The Athenians did themselves in, they became so weak by voting for pieces of the public pie that eventually they no longer had the means to defend their nation and were easily conquered militarily.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy."

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770

[TheWalrus]

Well then take a course in logical reasoning, you are not allowed to appeal to standards that you set for yourself when trying to argue a logical point.

Not only are all standards personal, but this critique of my method doesn't even apply in this case, as I'm using logic to argue for the standards I'm setting. That's quite different.

The Athenians did themselves in, they became so weak by voting for pieces of the public pie that eventually they no longer had the means to defend their nation and were easily conquered militarily.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Your understanding of ancient Athens is really quite poor.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy."

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770

An interesting theory. Nothing more. And anyway it seems highly doubtful that Tylter wrote this.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Statler Waldorf]

Not only are all standards personal, but this critique of my method doesn't even apply in this case, as I'm using logic to argue for the standards I'm setting. That's quite different.

I am sorry but you are wrong again, standards are not personally set, a person cannot argue, “I believe that “A” and “not A” can exist in the same relationship and at the same time.” That is a standard of truth that is objectively true and completely independent of the arguer. You’re not using logic to argue for a standard you set, that by definition is illogical because I can postulate set the completely opposite standard and there’s nothing you can do about it. Logically sound arguments must be independent of their arguer, your argument is not.

Your understanding of ancient Athens is really quite poor.

I notice you do this a lot, when you’re pushed into a corner you just make a baseless assertion, as if it proves anything. I guess I will just respond with the opposite assertion since it holds as much weight, “No, your understanding of the Athenians is rather poor.” How do you like that? :-P

An interesting theory. Nothing more. And anyway it seems highly doubtful that Tylter wrote this.

So your internet source claiming Tyler didn’t in fact write that somehow takes precedence over all of the internet sources who do credit him with writing that? That’s funny. Either way, whether he wrote it or not is irrelevant, the theory seems to apply to our current democracy rather well.

[TheWalrus]

I am sorry but you are wrong again, standards are not personally set, a person cannot argue, “I believe that “A” and “not A” can exist in the same relationship and at the same time.” That is a standard of truth that is objectively true and completely independent of the arguer. You’re not using logic to argue for a standard you set, that by definition is illogical because I can postulate set the completely opposite standard and there’s nothing you can do about it. Logically sound arguments must be independent of their arguer, your argument is not.

I'm intrigued. By what process did you develop your views on taxes?

I notice you do this a lot, when you’re pushed into a corner you just make a baseless assertion, as if it proves anything. I guess I will just respond with the opposite assertion since it holds as much weight, “No, your understanding of the Athenians is rather poor.” How do you like that? :-P

If you want to read up on the death of Pericles, the political rivalry between the Delian League (Athens and friends) and the Peloponnesian League (Sparta and friends) in the wake of the victory over Persia, the ultimate victory of the Peloponnesian League and the subsequent rise of Macedon... the information is all out there. Your initial statement about the citizens of Athens voting for pork barrel spending and that being the cause of their downfall was the very definition of "baseless," as it showed a complete ignorance of even the basics on an issue you were trying to draw a conclusion about.

Hilarious.

So your internet source claiming Tyler didn’t in fact write that somehow takes precedence over all of the internet sources who do credit him with writing that? That’s funny. Either way, whether he wrote it or not is irrelevant, the theory seems to apply to our current democracy rather well.

If you think the fact that the quote can't be traced farther back than the 1950s doesn't mean anything (since it appears in none of his works), then... good for you! Your credulity is once again an inspiration.

Anyway, I agree it's irrelevant whether he said it or not and said that. It's just one of a million theories.