RomneyRyan 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

:cyduck:

---

If my confusion confuses you, no wonder communication has broken down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Your missing my the reason for my response. As long as they actually have part of their income tax taken then if the program doesn't benefit them then they are worse off than the poor because the poor had to pay 0. The poor don't pay income tax.

---

But the programs do benefit them, you're forgetting about trickle-up effects resulting from the security of the middle class. (the poor are shafted in all realities, no need to waste our time with them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

If my confusion confuses you, no wonder communication has broken down

---

I was saying "right back at ya".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I was saying "right back at ya".

---

Which I was addressing? Or did you meant to criticize simply posting a smilie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

But the programs do benefit them, you're forgetting about trickle-up effects resulting from the security of the middle class. (the poor are shafted in all realities, no need to waste our time with them)

---

Presumably the poor get that same benefit, especially since most crimes get committed by the poor against the poor.

http://www.barackobama.com/free-bump...TICKERS_SIGNUP

free obama bumper stickers. rather lame designs, especially the pseudospanish one.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...atic-herd.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...=sunday-review

A bit simplistic, but provides a good overview of the various voting blocs composing the two main parties. People who assume that one or both parties is composed of a homogenous group with identical interests should have a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

They recommendations are partisan when someone from one party makes requests using their specific assumptions and presents the data as the Word of Allah. The recommendations are bi-partisan when people from two parties make requests using their specific assumptions and presents the data as the Word of Allah.

Much like factchecking sites, the CBO allows people to use its status as a third party as a smokescreen. Sure, both factcheckers and the CBO could be right. But they exist partially as tools used to bludgeon for any given agenda on any given day.

---

At least the CBO is a relatively transparent "bludgeoning" tool. They're required to name and footnote all sorts of things, from requests to assumptions, and models used for calculations.

I'm less concerned about the CBO than the main credit-rating agencies.....whose math and 'footnotes' are on the fuzzy side, yet are used as quasi-government approval for trillions of dollars of investments. They find their way into so many other "assumptions", including what's considered investment grade for mutual funds and pension funds, and what has government protection (PBGC, SIPC etc)

Quote:

---

Agree to disagree. The things you listed are great corrupters that promise heady things and often deliver stasis and benefits for the few. Hence, government as the ultimate trickle-down system.

---

How can you call public Education, Health, and Infrastructure 'corrupters that benefit the few'....when those are the very things that helped the US, and every other developed nation, make so many advancements for so many people? Maybe you missed my point, or I wasn't clear about what "trickles down".

The private sector business has different goals, and different constituents, than a government. Business seeks profits, including shareholder profits. Private equity and venture capital seeks the same, even if that means downsizing, closing, firing, voiding pension plans and health benefits. They view it as "creative destruction", and figure their profits will...eventually....trickle down. Somehow, somewhere.

That's some pretty magical thinking, when we know they also employ accountants and tax attorneys to find the tax loopholes, in order to pay between 0-15 % in federal taxes. Taxes that are meant to fund the military, national infrastructure projects, R & D in medicine-physics-aerospace, federal grants for university education or community development, etc. It becomes magical pink pony thinking, knowing that most of our K-12 Education is funded by local and state property taxes, by district lines, and property valuations.

Governments and public entities don't operate like private businesses, and for good reasons.

Do the footnotes of an analysis really matter when you can just blog "Hurf durf the CBO sez this" on your factcheck site? Of course not. This is why the CBO is actually often a tool of partisan warfare.

Hence, heavy skepticism toward politicians who manipulate or exploit CBO numbers for their own agenda. The mere fact that it can be "played" by both sides, might signal its true non-partisan nature.

Yes, we should have the greatest respect for the numbers which are the most openly manipulated. :downcast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Do the footnotes of an analysis really matter when you can just blog "Hurf durf the CBO sez this" on your factcheck site? Of course not. This is why the CBO is actually often a tool of partisan warfare.

---

And still they feel the need to make up numbers, if they can also have actual numbers they want generated by the CBO? :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

And still they feel the need to make up numbers, if they can also have actual numbers they want generated by the CBO? :bored:

---

Very rarely are numbers just "made up", there's very different ways of generating numbers.

Quite frankly any numbers made from a static view of taxation are BS pure and simple. Changing tax rates changes people's behaviour - that's known and the reason why we have 'sin' taxes on certain products and zero taxes on others ... yet all of a sudden on trying to calculate the impact we pretend that changing rates won't change behaviour? Garbage and all we know it.

And the problem is that fallacy is not "neutral" in view of left-or-right, it results in a massive bias to the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Very rarely are numbers just "made up", there's very different ways of generating numbers.

Quite frankly any numbers made from a static view of taxation are BS pure and simple. Changing tax rates changes people's behaviour - that's known and the reason why we have 'sin' taxes on certain products and zero taxes on others ... yet all of a sudden on trying to calculate the impact we pretend that changing rates won't change behaviour? Garbage and all we know it.

And the problem is that fallacy is not "neutral" in view of left-or-right, it results in a massive bias to the left.

---

It;s not that I disagree with you here, the point is (for me anyway) not about numbers in facts, because as you say you start with certain assumptions to get certain numbers. I'm more worried about the actual facts that are misrepresented, even simple ones.

To quote my earlier post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Yes, that. I.do realise that (esp long term) economic predictions are a useful tool, as long as you keep the conditions and rules it uses in mind, and not suited that well for fact checking.

Simple facts however, can be checked. Also, I do think that if you claim numbers like this you should have some source. So, fair enough that you disagree with the CBO, but a) don't claim it says things it doesn't say (lie) b) if you use different numbers, have some source, and don't pull them out of your ass (not a lie, but fantasy). Oh, and don't claim people or memos or bills say things they (specifically) don't say.

I mean, if Obama is the communist spawn of Satan they think he is, surely they don't need lies, right? Or is he actually not as bad as they say? :o

---

So, if you ask me: Saying someone is wrong because he has different numbers than you? Meh. Saying someone is wrong because he has no source whatsoever for his numbers, or uses actual numbers but completely out of context? Yes, he is wrong in that case. And if you start misquoting people (quoting Obama who was quoting McCain, for example..), you're just being a dick.

How different would the CBO's numbers be if they used dynamic models?

As Rand said, static modeling tends to support left-wing arguments calling for higher taxes to fund government programs. Dynamic modeling tends to support more right-wing ideas, like having lower, simpler and more stable tax rates that allow long-term revenue growth.

EG, the "Bush tax cuts" of the early 2000s cut dividend/capital gains taxes, which the leftists/the press deemed as "cuts for the rich". In fact, the aggregate share of tax revenues the US government got from "the rich" increased in the mid-2000s. A lot of factors went into that, including a real estate boom. But another important factor is more companies paid higher dividends, which led to more money flowing to the government. Rich people tend to own more shares in public companies than poor people, so the actual tax revenue increase from upper-income households went up.

Static revenue counts see the Bush tax cuts as a straight revenue loss, when the reality is far more complicated. Which doesn't mean I endorse the tax cuts per se, but I think some of the subsequent tax revenues don't support the static scoring methods.

http://news.yahoo.com/bob-woodward-b...151043612.html Obama doesn't come out looking good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2

Lying about the context of his own mother's death: stay classy Barack.

Didn't think you'd mind, I thought you said making up stories is okay as long as you are a politician with an agenda? :p

I would think they could find issues to lie about that don't reveal them as terrible human beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I would think they could find issues to lie about that don't reveal them as terrible human beings.

---

because dumping millions into advertisements that blatantly lie to old people so you scare them into supporting you is what non-terrible human beings do :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://news.yahoo.com/bob-woodward-b...151043612.html Obama doesn't come out looking good.

---

"We have the votes. F--- 'em," :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

because dumping millions into advertisements that blatantly lie to old people so you scare them into supporting you is what non-terrible human beings do :haha:

---

Yeah even in the UK I've seen online those Democrat videos lying to old people. One particularly pleasant one sticks in mind where an old lady in a wheelchair is thrown off a cliff by a stereotypical GOP WASP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yeah even in the UK I've seen online those Democrat videos lying to old people. One particularly pleasant one sticks in mind where an old lady in a wheelchair is thrown off a cliff by a stereotypical GOP WASP.

---

:bulb:

Speaking of Ryan actually ...

It's hilarious in how bad it is :p This is a real ad that was on tv? This kind of shit would lose my vote, not get it!

I don't know if it was shown on TV or just made for YouTube but either way anyone who claims that one side is whiter than fresh snow while the other is blacker than pitch is either ignorant or worse. They're all at it.

It was meant as a local TV ad (digital age, ha) for a small number of markets. It also wasn't endorsed by any politicans. Fringe groups always put out crazy shit, this one has appeared stuck on granny ever since Sarah Palins death panel remarks.

Now, if you're trying to compare a presidential hopeful to this...group. Be my guest.

Right so fringe groups are perfectly above the fray and can do whatever they want and you'd not complain? So you had no issues and never got upset with the swift boat vets for truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Right so fringe groups are perfectly above the fray and can do whatever they want and you'd not complain? So you had no issues and never got upset with the swift boat vets for truth?

---

I mainly consider them something that should be kept out of the fray in a serious discussion. I vaguely remember making fun of swift boat with Loki in some manner over at Atari.

You don't see a problem in dismissing a politican's behavior because an unrelated group of possibly unstable people act the same way? :bulb:

Tee hee