Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

#276
#276
droski said:
So your theory is if the rich had higher taxes and the poor the same that the economy would be better because the income disparity was less. Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be a little better.No, just raising taxes wouldn't automatically fix everything as you people are dying to put in my mouth(not sure why).
 
#278
#278
Ed12111 said:
I read it you didn't post anything of substance. You continually ask me to explain my argument I do then you write more nonsensical deflectionary garbage.
1. You asked for a specific I gave you marginal utility of money.
2. You go off on some dismissive diatribe.
3. I say would you like to disagree.
4. You respond yeah well.. and then go down some other rabbithole.

All you do is change the subject and twist my words. I'm still not sure why you're hung up on taxes causing the recession, when I have repeatedly made clear to you my problem with Bush's tax policies were mostly with income inequality and the deficit in mind. Interesting that you never bother to show a "causal link" for any of your claims, instead just throwing them out there as some absolute truth.
Click to expand...

So we finally get to the tax/recession link - it doesn't really exist. I agree.

I showed a causal link with lending regulatory change and opposition to Fannie/Freddie oversight and how that was an important factor in the RE bubble but you called that Beckian and explicitly stated Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with the recession. I contend you are wrong here.

The pattern I see from your responses is that you label every post that disagrees with your premises as "nonsensical". If everyone else seems nonsensical to you then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your premises...
 
#279
#279
Ed12111 said:
Yes, it would be a little better.No, just raising taxes wouldn't automatically fix everything as you people are dying to put in my mouth(not sure why).
Click to expand...

Why would it be better if there was less money overall in the economy? This is basic
 
#281
#281
volinbham said:
So we finally get to the tax/recession link - it doesn't really exist. I agree.

I showed a causal link with lending regulatory change and opposition to Fannie/Freddie oversight and how that was an important factor in the RE bubble but you called that Beckian and explicitly stated Fannie/Freddie had nothing to do with the recession. I contend you are wrong here.

The pattern I see from your responses is that you label every post that disagrees with your premises as "nonsensical". If everyone else seems nonsensical to you then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your premises...
Click to expand...

Funny, I'd contend you should apply that bit of introspection to yourself. "Everyone" who is disagreeing with me is a handful of commenters on a board of a college football team based in the South. Whereas you and the the other handful of people are arguing from a position so far right it would be difficult to go any further without going into an anarchist position. Without the slightest bit of exaggeration if you put 100 economists in a room Arthur Laffer would be on the complete fringe, and that is where you guys seem to be coming from.
 
#283
#283
Ed12111 said:
Funny, I'd contend you should apply that bit of introspection to yourself. "Everyone" who is disagreeing with me is a handful of commenters on a board of a college football team based in the South. Whereas you and the the other handful of people are arguing from a position so far right it would be difficult to go any further without going into an anarchist position. Without the slightest bit of exaggeration if you put 100 economists in a room Arthur Laffer would be on the complete fringe, and that is where you guys seem to be coming from.
Click to expand...

And the relevance of this is.....
 
#284
#284
I guess he's implying that football fans in the south are ignorant when it comes to things like this
 
Last edited:
#285
#285
VolBurgers said:
Everyone - meaning 3-5 people on an internet board?
Click to expand...

The 3-5 he's replied to yes. While not statistically valid it does represent virtually everyone in this thread.

To the larger point it gets to an argument style. Rather than refute arguments the common response is that the argument is nonsensical. Hard to imagine that every argument counter to his is nonsensical so the clearer explanation would be that he has a comprehension problem (doesn't understand the argument) or has no response so he resorts to attacks rather than substantive rebuttals.
 
#286
#286
Ed12111 said:
Funny, I'd contend you should apply that bit of introspection to yourself. "Everyone" who is disagreeing with me is a handful of commenters on a board of a college football team based in the South. Whereas you and the the other handful of people are arguing from a position so far right it would be difficult to go any further without going into an anarchist position. Without the slightest bit of exaggeration if you put 100 economists in a room Arthur Laffer would be on the complete fringe, and that is where you guys seem to be coming from.
Click to expand...

See? There you go again. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist. Of 6 people in this discussion your opinion is at odds with the other 5 yet that is evidence that the 5 are the extremists?

Further I'd suggest you reread the thread. Almost everyone has listed multiple factors leading to the recession and either directly stated or implied that both parties have responsibilities for decisions/actions/policies that led to the recession and current economic situation. You on the other hand have blamed no one but Bush and the Republicans. Then you tell us we are the extremists.

It keeps getting better and better.
 
#289
#289
volinbham said:
The 3-5 he's replied to yes. While not statistically valid it does represent virtually everyone in this thread.

To the larger point it gets to an argument style. Rather than refute arguments the common response is that the argument is nonsensical. Hard to imagine that every argument counter to his is nonsensical so the clearer explanation would be that he has a comprehension problem (doesn't understand the argument) or has no response so he resorts to attacks rather than substantive rebuttals.
Click to expand...

"While not statistically valid". Right there you're admitting everything that follows is meaningless (and yes nonsensical) yet you continue. I think that about sums up your "argument style".
 
#290
#290
volinbham said:
rather than substantive rebuttals.
Click to expand...
False. He gave you substantive rebuttals and you weakly rejected them. Now you just keep asking for stuff that he's already given you 2 days ago. Classic internet argument. You two disagree, doesn't mean he should "reevaluate his premises" because 4 libertarians on a message board are incapable of rational debate.
 
#291
#291
volinbham said:
See? There you go again. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist. Of 6 people in this discussion your opinion is at odds with the other 5 yet that is evidence that the 5 are the extremists?

Further I'd suggest you reread the thread. Almost everyone has listed multiple factors leading to the recession and either directly stated or implied that both parties have responsibilities for decisions/actions/policies that led to the recession and current economic situation. You on the other hand have blamed no one but Bush and the Republicans. Then you tell us we are the extremists.

It keeps getting better and better.
Click to expand...

You brought up the extremist argument so.... I merely pointed out I'm an extremist in a room of four. While your parroted talking points are from actual extremists amongst people who actually have knowledge on the matter.
 
#293
#293
VolBurgers said:
False. He gave you substantive rebuttals and you weakly rejected them. Now you just keep asking for stuff that he's already given you 2 days ago. Classic internet argument. You two disagree, doesn't mean he should "reevaluate his premises" because 4 libertarians on a message board are incapable of rational debate.
Click to expand...

Now I have to disagree with you.
 
#294
#294
Ed12111 said:
You brought up the extremist argument so.... I merely pointed out I'm an extremist in a room of four. While your parroted talking points are from actual extremists amongst people who actually have knowledge on the matter.
Click to expand...

which argument of mine was extremist?

why are my talking points parroted from actual extremists yet yours are based on your specific knowledge?
 
#298
#298
volinbham said:
which argument of mine was extremist?

why are my talking points parroted from actual extremists yet yours are based on your specific knowledge?
Click to expand...

All your arguments come from a Randian type philosophy this is obviously not in the mainstream. Your whole bit about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an attempt to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats and most laughably Barnie Frank. As I told you earlier, this idea is only perpetuated by the likes of Beck.
 
#299
#299
utvolpj said:
here's the exchange before our friend Ed said I wanted to make the US into Somalia.
Click to expand...

If anyone bothered to search they would find me arguing why pure Libertarianism will not work.

Likewise they could assess that I am not in fact a libertarian although I've been accused of that along with being a tard, someone that hates old people, a hillbilly and a Beck follower (all of which are false).

I guess that's what passes as rational argument though.
 
#300
#300
Ed12111 said:
All your arguments come from a Randian type philosophy this is obviously not in the mainstream. Your whole bit about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is an attempt to shift the housing bubble onto Democrats and most laughably Barnie Frank. As I told you earlier, this idea is only perpetuated by the likes of Beck.
Click to expand...
Do you mean Barnie Fwank?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top