- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Here we have OC doing what he does so well... he puts words in other people's mouths and then argues from that point. And he'll argue you said it, and as witnessed above, he will call you stupid for a position he's assigned you. It's the only way the cretin seems to know how to debate... dishonestly.
OC can't take the words at face value or ask what someone implied or their underlying meaning.
Nope... he jumps right in a puts words in other people's mouths. It's a bad habit of his, that and his professional prevaricating while accusing others of it.
OC, it's time to clean up your pathetic act.
.
What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others.
You're taking money from Oscar Meyer to "Create or Save" a job, claiming that when the recipient buys hot dogs, he'll create more jobs. It makes no sense.
"I'm going to take $1.00 from you so we can pay Steve to paint the fence that Al over there decided was the least important thing to spend money on. We're going to save that job. Not to worry, you'll get $.80 back from Steve when he buys your XXX and with that you can hire more people, we'll of course pocket $.20 for providing our services. Everybody wins."
I hate to break this to you, but condescending liberals like you are a dime a dozen.
And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.Why? First of all, I made no assumption that the jobs were created out of nowhere. That is a fabrication on your part. Do that again and I will call you a liar and I will prove it. I merely pointed out that the assumptions within the cost model are faulty as they are extremely unrealistic as it requires earned money in those jobs not to be taxed or spent.
No, but they do point guns at people and force them to pay off that debt. I assume you're not advocating we default on those obligations. Of course, that's paid with interest. Maybe you want to tell me that will create jobs for bankers? Oscar Meyer pays taxes to cover interest and loan payments for all of these jobs, if not now, then sometime down the road, making those jobs cost more and more as compounded interest works its magic.Considering that the stimulus was debt financed, no money was "taken" at all. Unless you think that the government points guns at people and forces them to buy debt.
I hold no such belief. Where did you get the notion that debt is never repaid, that the employee wins, the government wins, the company wins, and the only loser is the thin air from which we get the money to make this all work?Where did you get this notion that debt offerings are involuntary actions upon debt purchasers?
I wasn't aware that Gringrich and Goldwater are/were liberals.
I do find it amusing there's a hate club for me. I guess after destroying so many of you so often you guys band together in what little hope you have of actually getting a hit on me. Cute really.
OC, multipliers are the smallest part of the error. The value of the work is far and away the biggest thing making the calculations false.
And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.
No, but they do point guns at people and force them to pay off that debt.
I assume you're not advocating we default on those obligations. Of course, that's paid with interest. Maybe you want to tell me that will create jobs for bankers? Oscar Meyer pays taxes to cover interest and loan payments for all of these jobs, if not now, then sometime down the road, making those jobs cost more and more as compounded interest works its magic.
I hold no such belief.
Where did you get the notion that debt is never repaid
that the employee wins, the government wins, the company wins, and the only loser is the thin air from which we get the money to make this all work?
Thanks !!
Great job at proving my post correct.
The problem is that your reasoning is exceptionally unrealistic, as I've clearly explained. You have no understanding of debt.So you are a liar. Got it. I actually stated the model in question is exceptionally unrealistic. My ENTIRE POSTS detailed why the model was unrealistic as its assumptions basically required those in the saved/created jobs to be robots. Can you read? And you were NOT merely pointing out that. Instead of actually reading what I wrote, you assumed what you wanted and then created obvious fabrications to attack me on. Too bad that I called you on your bull**** you liar.
Most people choose to pay taxes rather than refusing to the point of being persuaded by guns. This is not rocket science.Not necessarily. Unless you can prove that a specific person's taxes went towards debt servicing, you don't have an argument, unlike say the DOE calling in the swat team on the unpaid education loans. That would actually being pointing guns at people to force them to pay off that debt.
I'm sorry you're having such trouble understanding the point. Borrowing has consequences that offset the gains you wish to claim. You're only looking at one side of the coin.Are you really that foolish? I just pointed out how the OP's argument is idiotic because it does not account for multipliers. And you just argued that multipliers don't exist by saying that the costs to provide the initial capital for the initial jobs ends there and no additional jobs are created by indirect spending. Try again, with less fail.
Whether they take it immediately or a few years of now is beside the point. They are going to take the money.Because you stated that the government took money to pay for the stimulus. Which is wrong. The government will eventually have to pay off the debt related to the stimulus, but it did not take money to pay for the stimulus at the time of the capital infusion.
Someone has to keep that fragile ego of yours intact.
You do realize this is merely because they are not in power. Look at their record when in power. Didn't McCain rightly say they spent like drunken sailors? If you accept such blatant pandering, you will be fooled again. :coffeepap
Source please.
The problem is that your reasoning is exceptionally unrealistic, as I've clearly explained. You have no understanding of debt.
Most people choose to pay taxes rather than refusing to the point of being persuaded by guns. This is not rocket science.
I'm sorry you're having such trouble understanding the point.
Borrowing has consequences that offset the gains you wish to claim. You're only looking at one side of the coin.
Whether they take it immediately or a few years of now is beside the point. They are going to take the money.
I know this is a difficult concept for many of you on the left, but there is no free lunch.
That's pretty funny coming from someone whining that everyone hates him.
OC running around calling everyone a LIAR.
have you ever posted anything beyond that?
I'm not so sure about that. The total spending and stated jobs given look reasonable. It's just that the underlying assumptions as to why the calculation stopped there are truly asinine. And IMO, the lack of multipliers are a rather large error.
You misunderstand I think. If a stimulus job does 500mil of road work, then you have gotten 500 mil of value from that stimulus job, plus employed people. The calculation only would divide the cost of the job by the number of people employed, and ignores that the work provided something of value.
No... I never attributed any argument to you -- on the contrary, I pointed out that you had a naive understanding with implied assumptions that were quite outrageous. Your follow-up attempts have only underscored the simplemindedness of your argument.Still carrying the liar title eh? How is my reasoning exceptionally unrealistic? You falsely attributed an argument to me that I never made. So you calling that theory wrong and I wrong for backing it when I never argued it is dishonest. Furthermore, after I clarified that I never made that argument you declared wrong, you KEEP attributing it to me. So either you can't read or you have a serious chip on your shoulder and you're willing to basically lie in the face of everything.
Actually it's jail. Not guns. But still doesn't address what you quoted.
I'm sorry you think that lying is a good argument.
One must wonder if you can read. I never argued that borrowing does not have consequences. I merely pointed out that borrowing can result in good outcomes dependent upon who you are. You never addressed this instead attributing arguments to me that I never made. Furthermore, you still refuse to stop attributing arguments I never made despite clarification I never made them. How does this not render you a liar ?
Nice fallacy of raising the bar. Not only are you a liar in accusing me of things I never said, but you now, faced with an argument you can't lie yourself out of (don't you hate that there's a limit on editing posts?) you now raise the bar. Sure, money will be allocated in the future towards debt servicing, but you are still wrong that they took the money to pay for the stimulus. People freely gave them money to pay for the stimulus. Someone else 10, 15, 30 years down the road is going to pay it back.
It's amusing you think Gringrich and Goldwater are on the left.
Btw, you haven't actually addressed what I was talking about, namely that the cost assumption per job is stupid because it does not account for multipliers. I doubt you even know what a multiplier is.
I'll continue to hold your hand and eventually we'll get through this... now, what happens when you refuse to go to jail?Actually it's jail. Not guns. But still doesn't address what you quoted.
No... I never attributed any argument to you
What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others.
And I was merely pointing out the flawed assumptions within your unrealistic model that requires money used to create or save jobs come out of thin air.
on the contrary, I pointed out that you had a naive understanding with implied assumptions that were quite outrageous.
Your follow-up attempts have only underscored the simplemindedness of your argument.
I'll continue to hold your hand and eventually we'll get through this... now, what happens when you refuse to go to jail?
None of that is attributing an argument to you. It's precisely what I said it was: - pointing out the absurd, implied assumptions in your argument. If you're still confused, I suggest you consult a dictionary.Therefore you are a liar. Let's revisit your earlier posts:
Looks like you did. And after I point out I made no such argument you again attribute the same argument I never made to me:
Therefore, you are lying.
Of course you didn't. That's why you make naive arguments with conclusions that imply such things.On the contrary, you never even addressed what I wrote. I never once argued that jobs came out of "thin air." Not a single instance.
What?You have yet to address my actual statement that the calculated job cost number is stupid because it requires those in the saved/created jobs to be robots.
None of that is attributing an argument to you.
It's precisely what I said it was: - pointing out the absurd, implied assumptions in your argument. If you're still confused, I suggest you consult a dictionary.
Of course you didn't. That's why you make naive arguments with conclusions that imply such things.
What?
Oh no you don't! Liar, liar pants on fire! The article never said that! You're lying! OMG!
My original point still stands. The stated cost per job is exceptionally stupid as it requires no taxes to be levied and no income to be spent by those saved or created jobs.
The only way Weekly Standard's numbers hold up if no one taxed those jobs and the people in those saved jobs spent no money and put it under the bed away from the financial sector.
The idiotic assumption underlying Zimmer's stupid argument is that those who had jobs created/saved incurred no taxes and spent no money. Now, I don't know where he's from, but people I know spend money merely to eat and house themselves, both often incur taxes in some form. Therefore, the base assumption which ends at the saved job itself is rather idiotic as it ignores basic human behavior
Actually I never said your argument stated that. It merely requires it. Learn to read. Seriously. Wow. You're a prime example of why the DOE needs to end.Come again? You outright state I never made such an argument...and yet you said this "What's retarded is your ridiculous assumption that the saved/created jobs were created out of thin air and not at the expense of others" while saying my argument which I didn't say actually says that. All without actually naming a single assumption you think is wrong. Wow. You're a prime example of why the DOE needs to end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?