14 Jul 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I for one do believe everything that I read. Who cares about the babies. I'm a liberal (i.e. a baby killer). I'd be for exterminating every last baby. So what if they soak up toxins? They shouldn't be born anyway.
Left? Have you read one of my posts today? Just because I demand accountability from people who I agree with on some things means I'm on the left?
Well, no, you're right. That piece of propaganda shouildn't be trusted. It did, after all, come from that bastion of left-wing radicalism, the Red Cross.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Just kidding. Didn't mean to get your hackles up. I know that you're from the right; and I know you're from the right that is sometimes right, as opposed to the right that is always wrong.
Left? Have you read one of my posts today? Just because I demand accountability from people who I agree with on some things means I'm on the left?
Well, no, you're right. That piece of propaganda shouildn't be trusted. It d ...[text shortened]... ll, come from that bastion of left-wing radicalism, the Red Cross.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672But that was the position of the GOP, or at least most people in the GOP, until 1980.
Wule - that's where you're wrong. On some things, I'm from the right. On fiscal and economic stuff. On other things, I'm from the left. Like social issues stuff. Basically, I would make the worst possible political candidate because I would infuriate both sides because they would half-agree with me.
I wasn't thinking of running you for office, nor of voting for you if you did.
I had a good friend in college who was on the opposite side: left wing on "fiscal and economic stuff," conservative on so-called "morality issues." He and I served together in political office (campus politics), and we lost several key battles to the resume builing coalition, but not without causing some blood to flow--figuratively speaking, of course.
Being on the left on social issues is right in my book, of course. And being on the right on "fiscal and economic stuff" is a position with which I can respectfully disagree. I admire principles, even when their are misguided, and so I don't call them wrong the way I would call Bush's irresponsible tax cuts wrong.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrTax cuts generate economic activity.
...Being on the left on social issues is right in my book, of course. And being on the right on "fiscal and economic stuff" is a position with which I can respectfully disagree. I admire principles, even when their are misguided, and so I don't call them wrong the way I would call Bush's irresponsible tax cuts wrong.
From the New York Times, July 13, 2005
It's a long article, but here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?
July 13, 2005
Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion...etc
The leap in tax revenues were only 'unexpected' by the NY Times, and otherr idiots on the left, who don't understand how a dynamic economy operates. You'll notice that this 'unexpected' leap in tax revenue took place AFTER tax cuts went into effect.
I'm just amazed that the Times actually ran the story.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by TheBloopI understand how tax cuts work Bloop on an economy. Do you?
Tax cuts generate economic activity.
From the New York Times, July 13, 2005
It's a long article, but here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?
July 13, 2005
Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, July 12 - For the first time since President Bush took office, an ...[text shortened]... ax cuts went into effect.
I'm just amazed that the Times actually ran the story.
It's funny cause I would have taken you more for a classical style economist rather than a Keynesian. Maybe you are just a Republican economist, that is if a Republican does it, it is good, if a non-Republican does it, it is bad.
Generating economic activity is not the point. Hiring people to pick up rocks, bury them in the ground and dig them back up again generates economic activity. The point is to generate economic activity in a way that doesn't stifle it later.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionWe should also examine the totalizing measures of economic activity for how that activity becomes distributed across society.
I understand how tax cuts work Bloop on an economy. Do you?
[snip] The point is to generate economic activity in a way that doesn't stifle it later.
Henry Ford made certain that his employees could afford the goods they produced; he considered the development of middle class laborers the best route to wealth, and to Americanism. How many folks in today's economy who labor in fields of production can afford the goods they create?
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrMost certainly. A lot of people with no formal education in economics seem to think that the discipline is all about increasing GDP. This is not true. Anyone who has taken a Principles of Economics class should be able to give reasons why GDP is not necessarily a good indicator of quality of life.
We should also examine the totalizing measures of economic activity for how that activity becomes distributed across society.
Henry Ford made certain that his employees could afford the goods they produced; he considered the development of middle class laborers the best route to wealth, and to Americanism. How many folks in today's economy who labor in fields of production can afford the goods they create?
Economics is the study of how to allocate scarce resources to best satisfy infinite wants. Issues of wealth and income heterogeneity have tremendous impacts on economic theory and policy. As computational techniques and resources have progressed in the last couple decades, economists have been exploring the role of wealth distribution seriously.