Should we expect a large expansion of federal spending under Clinton?

[mmi]

I strongly suspect it's because I make him feel stupid.

Well, I have to disagree with that. I don't think that's something anyone could accomplish.

 

[mmi]

Please provide a graph that shows income disparity which includes the rich's income minus the taxes that they already pay now.

You believe that public opinion creates "facts" about the ACA, so here are the "facts" about whether or not taxes should be used to redistribute wealth.



And as you can see, the fat cats have only brought it on themselves.

 

[Moderate Right]

Oh, I can comprehend people finding flaws just fine. What I can't comprehend is why somebody who claims to understand a subject would be so incredibly reluctant to demonstrate that understanding by putting that understanding in their own words, and then debating the subject instead of debating why they shouldn't have to demonstrate that knowledge. I also can't comprehend why anybody would think that desperately avoiding a demonstration of their understanding would make them come off as anything but pathetic.

And here you are, on a different thread, pulling the same pathetic crap on Absentglare. He brings data to the table, and all you can do is cry "cherry-picking." Here's a hint - the moment you decide to fall back on a cop-out like that, that is when you have lost the debate. No referee needed. Data beats the nothing that you bring.

I don't need to put it in my own words because the experts who know much more than everyone here on DP added together, have already put it in their own words. I can't make a better argument than they can. They have already done it. You think you can avoid the truth of what the experts have already found by debating me in my own words, because you know you don't have the credentials to critique Roche, Krugman, and the many other experts who have found MMT to be flawed, which is why you would rather debate me in my own words than respond to them. Then you have the gall to argue that you and the others have presented non cherry picked facts and graphs to prove your points while at the very same time denying me the opportunity to present the facts from expert economists who find MMT to be flawed.

 

[Moderate Right]

I disagree, because he seems to have made it his life's mission to "disprove" MMT, even though he knows nothing about it. And I strongly suspect it's because I make him feel stupid.

Who is the one who would rather debate me in my own words because they don't believe they have the knowledge to debate the economic experts who do this for a living who find MMT to be flawed?

 

[Absentglare]

That's exactly right and what I have been saying all along. You guys continually only present facts that only tell the partial story while conveniently leaving out the full body of evidence, hence cherry picking. I have already given you examples of what you do and provided you with my own cherry picked stats in an attempt to make you understand what YOU do and yet you refuse to acknowledge that your stats don't show the full body of evidence and as such, that makes them cherry picked. Please provide a graph that shows income disparity which includes the rich's income minus the taxes that they already pay now.

When we provide long term graphs with the full population of data, you cannot simply say it's cherry picking.

You did not present a full body of evidence that i saw MR.

 

[jaeger19]

If you are honest with yourself, you would just accept defeat. That's how it works on debate boards.

Well.. when you are capable of doing that.. I suppose you then would be less of a hypocrite.

 

[mmi]

I don't need to put it in my own words

In order to debate, you do.

>>I can't make a better argument than they can.

I agree. The problem is that you can't even begin to understand their argument.

>>You think you can avoid the truth of what the experts have already found

What truth? Tell us what it is.

>>you would rather debate me in my own words than respond to them.

How can anyone respond to them — they're not here.

>>you have the gall to argue that you and the others have presented non cherry picked facts and graphs to prove your points

Yer have the … something … to say that facts are being cherry-picked and not back that up by showing the broader picture you claim is being misrepresented.

>>denying me the opportunity to present the facts from expert economists who find MMT to be flawed.

Of course no one has denied you the opportunity to present anything. But we won't debate a document, one that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

 

[jaeger19]

In order to debate, you do.

>>I can't make a better argument than they can.

I agree. The problem is that you can't even begin to understand their argument.

>>You think you can avoid the truth of what the experts have already found

What truth? Tell us what it is.

>>you would rather debate me in my own words than respond to them.

How can anyone respond to them — they're not here.

>>you have the gall to argue that you and the others have presented non cherry picked facts and graphs to prove your points

Yer have the … something … to say that facts are being cherry-picked and not back that up by showing the broader picture you claim is being misrepresented.

>>denying me the opportunity to present the facts from expert economists who find MMT to be flawed.

Of course no one has denied you the opportunity to present anything. But we won't debate a document, one that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

You guys are too funny.

if you can;t debate the facts.. attack the poster.

The irony of you posting this. Actually the hypocrisy.. is astounding.

have a good one. eace

 

[KLATTU]

Yo
And as you can see, the fat cats have only brought it on themselves.

LOL. Yea sure. Liberals have been playing the class warfare game forver( FAIR SHARE!!! FAIR SHARE!!!EFFECTIVE RATE!!!!WALL STREET!!!!) for EVVVVV-er.

Did you think #crookedHillary would stop that? me neither.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...w-fair-share-surcharge-on-multi-millionaires/

 

[mmi]

if you can;t debate the facts.. attack the poster.

What facts?

Liberals have been playing the class warfare game forver

Liberals have been crushing reactionary BS for millennia. The process continues.

 

[Neomalthusian]

For one, it is rare as ****.

Early 2009 was rare as **** in general, thankfully. Why is pointing out that Obama took office at that particular rare as **** time in our history so important?

Secondly, it shuts down the claims that the Obama administration expanded government.

Oh, so this is why. To defend Obama from the other side's partisan rhetoric. Ok then.

The contention in many threads is that the U.S. economy is facing stagnant growth because of "too much government". Consider the threads started by idiots who are uneducated about macroeconomics and the data.

It is important to set the record straight.

Formula? Come on... The motivation behind GOP obstructionism the past 9 years is well established.

The tone of your statements and questioning have not been politely investigative. You even brought up expenditure dynamics following a major world war as a counter to my position. You have been overly contentious in this matter, and have sought to attack men of straw rather than deal with the point of my comments: our slow post recovery growth has been a byproduct of (politically) restrictive government spending. This has been a constant theme throughout this thread, so of course i am going to label you partisan on the matter, if you haven't accepted the reality.

Mentioning WWII wasn't a counter, it was a point of comparison/contrast, one that is brought up all the time in the context of recent federal spending trends, including by folks like the President and popular economists. I admit I'm not a macroeconomist but I can smell the bull**** when the macroeconomics are crafted around a partisan message, as is pretty often done by... folks like the President and popular economists.

Economic Recovery: Lessons from the Post-World War II Period | Mercatus

 

[Moderate Right]

When we provide long term graphs with the full population of data, you cannot simply say it's cherry picking.

You did not present a full body of evidence that i saw MR.

Neither did you. Please show the graph that represents income disparity, taking into account the taxes the rich pay. After all, that is your solution to income disparity, tax the rich more and redistribute it to the poor and yet your graphs give them absolutely zero credit for the taxes that they already pay. The top percentage pays over 50% of the entire tax bill. I keep on waiting for your graph. If you can't produce one then you are admitting that your stats are cherry picked.

 

[mmi]

Please show the graph that represents income disparity, taking into account the taxes the rich pay.

>>your graphs give them absolutely zero credit for the taxes that they already pay.

Stupid MR lie #2473.

>>The top percentage pays over 50% of the entire tax bill.

Top what percentage?

In 2015, the top ten percent paid 50% of all taxes and collected 46.7% of national income.

>>I keep on waiting for your graph.

I keep posting it, and you keep Ignoring it or pretending to Ignore it or simply being Ignorant or whatever.

>>If you can't produce one

If you want to stop making a complete ass out of yerself, maybe you should, well, I suppose you'd need to stop posting altogether.

 

[Absentglare]

Neither did you. Please show the graph that represents income disparity, taking into account the taxes the rich pay. After all, that is your solution to income disparity, tax the rich more and redistribute it to the poor and yet your graphs give them absolutely zero credit for the taxes that they already pay. The top percentage pays over 50% of the entire tax bill. I keep on waiting for your graph. If you can't produce one then you are admitting that your stats are cherry picked.

Notice how pre-tax income growth is ~25% lower than post-tax income ? That is because tax law changes gave considerable post-tax income growth to the rich. That income growth was paid for by putting our government further into budget deficits.

And it's NOT cheap.

 

[mmi]

Notice

Well, another member that you'll need to add to yer Ignore list, … loser. ☺

 

[Moderate Right]

Notice how pre-tax income growth is ~25% lower than post-tax income ? That is because tax law changes gave considerable post-tax income growth to the rich. That income growth was paid for by putting our government further into budget deficits.

And it's NOT cheap.

Hey, you did it! Now I'll get off your back on this subject as apparently you found a stat that was apples to apples instead of being cherry picked. Just happened to turn out that the actual fact in this case proves your case more than the cherry picked fact. However, that doesn't give you a free ride on other liberal cherry picked facts that compare apples to oranges and doesn't show the total picture. Advantage Absentglare, this time.

 

[mmi]

Advantage Absentglare, this time.

Game, set, and match. Yer aggregate record is now 3591-0. Of course that may be cherry-picked and I'm only a hobbyist, so you can safely Ignore it.

 

[Moderate Right]

Game, set, and match. Yer aggregate record is now 3591-0. Of course that may be cherry-picked and I'm only a hobbyist, so you can safely Ignore it.

Yep. That's what I expected from some of you. I manned up and admitted that I can be wrong SOMETIMES while you still sit there claiming you are right ALL THE TIME and never admit that you are wrong about anything.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Yep. That's what I expected from some of you. I manned up and admitted that I can be wrong SOMETIMES while you still sit there claiming you are right ALL THE TIME and never admit that you are wrong about anything.

It took the data equivalent of a wooden stake through the heart to finally make you "man up" and admit defeat. But it has been clear to us for over a year that your arguments are devoid of facts and data, while you constantly fall back on partisan comments and crap like "cherry picking" to slink away from a losing position. Just like you would never put your anti-MMT arguments in your own words and demonstrate enough understanding to even be able to reasonably take a side in the debate. You take sides based on what other conservatives are doing and saying, not because you have considered both sides of an argument and made an informed choice.

 

[Moderate Right]

It took the data equivalent of a wooden stake through the heart to finally make you "man up" and admit defeat. But it has been clear to us for over a year that your arguments are devoid of facts and data, while you constantly fall back on partisan comments and crap like "cherry picking" to slink away from a losing position. Just like you would never put your anti-MMT arguments in your own words and demonstrate enough understanding to even be able to reasonably take a side in the debate. You take sides based on what other conservatives are doing and saying, not because you have considered both sides of an argument and made an informed choice.

Yep, there we go again, hearing yet from another person who thinks he is always right about everything.

 

[sookster]

Trumps Budget: Making the Deficit Great Again

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Trump’s policies would add an additional $11.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade, building a burden that could drastically increase borrowing costs and weigh down the U.S. economy.

From what I gather on the interwebts, Clinton wants to raise taxes on certain thresholds of income. Her goal is to not only spend for various programs, but she wants to balance the budget, like that of her husband.

Look it's the internet. But if republicans are more concerned with balancing the budget they should elect Hillary from what I gather.

 

[mmi]

I manned up and admitted that I can be wrong SOMETIMES while you still sit there claiming you are right ALL THE TIME and never admit that you are wrong about anything.

Well, let me say (while not even pretending to ignore the fact that you read that post despite having me on Ignore, obviously because you think you have the moral high ground this time and wanted to respond), by saying that, hey, I know you think I'm a jerk, but I hope you'll agree I'm humane enough to recognise the position yer in. I'm not smart enough to be a sociopath incapable of compassion, to apply a recent exchange in these parts.

But here's how I'd say this happens: I'm very cautious in making judgements. Unless I'm fairly certain of my position, I'm reluctant to say anything more than a sincere "Do ya think that maybe … ?" Otoh, I feel that you just go right at it with stuff like "Liberals all support unlimited deficit spending and debt," when there's really no basis for it.

The irony is that I'm a fiscal conservative. I was raised by a bookkeeper who voted Republican for many, many years … until I started working on her and eventually got her to the point where, in her last two presidential elections, she joined me in voting for Ralph Nader. (The Democrat always wins in RI, so those were votes designed to influence the party to adopt more of his policies and to encourage people like him to run.)

Why can't you take my word for it that there's no such thing as this threat to fiscal sanity from the Left? It's all in yer imagination. I in fact feel bad for mocking you about MMT. Hey, I have a bad temper and a short fuse, and you get on my nerves. That's my fault. But you just … Ignore me when I try to convince you that you should be WORKING WITH US. Yer not a bigot, yer not a moron, yer not ignorant or uncaring.

You want to help clean up the slums. I would spend eternity in Hell if I could play a role in making that happen. I'd be very unhappy about it, but I'd do it. I figure the Lord would pull me out and spare my soul in the end. That's about the extent of my "faith."

Anyway, to cut to the point (don't want another tldr if I can possibly avoid it), I'm effing begging you to trust me, to trust my judgement, to trust what I say about what the Left wants. I never lie, and again, I'm very cautious in making judgements. There are millions of decent, middle-class, moderate white Americans like you that MUST unite with decent, working-class, liberal Americans like me if we're going to solve at least some of our biggest problems before a new set develops.

You know there are a number of people I'll never be able to reach in this community, and they represent millions more who will never join in this effort I'm describing to do the kind of things our candidate, Governor Kasich, pushed for in his campaign.

Please, please help me. Help me so that I don't need to cry anymore on my way home from doing work in the state prison after visiting with people who never had much of a chance in life and have now thrown away what little chance they had, or from the state psychiatric hospital where I visited people who didn't get the help they needed when they still could have been saved from years if not a life of institutionalisation.

Help me get over the pain I feel tearing me apart when I see little black kids living in poverty in the slums in Providence. If I feel there's hope, more hope than there is now, of moving QUICKLY, RAPIDLY, ENERGETICALLY to end this monstrous pile of human misery that's been weighing down on me since I was a child, … I'll breathe more easily.

I'll figure that the efforts I've made over decades to reach out to good people like you who are perhaps justifiably suspicious of liberal Democratic policies to try to assure them that, no, we are NOT going to just hand out money to the poor and fail to solve problems have not been made in vain.

Trust me. It's true that, as you say, I'm "right ALL THE TIME." That's why I "never admit that I'm wrong about anything." If there's much of any chance that I could be wrong, I will NOT make a declarative statement. That would sort of be like lying, and I don't lie. As Frumpy would say, "believe me." "Believe Tom Robinson." Please don't turn away and break my heart, as has happened so many times.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-x6njs-cGUE