3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It is an honest statement. So? Which version of the whole picture will you accept? There are four different equally valid versions (depending on an individual's subjective point of view), the R Version, the D version, the L/I version, and the truth (which can be found buried somewhere in the middle of the other three). Which of those do you believe my original post reflected? Check my edit of the post you are responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 This election SHOULD have been about the economy. HOWEVER, GOP candidates simply couldnt keep their ignorant and bigoted mouths shut long enough to seal the easy win. If they keep Bible-thumping and insist on rooting their ideals in hatred and ignorance, they'll never win, no matter how good their economic plan looks. Youve posted some of the most angry, hate-filled stuff Ive ever seen in this very thread....and you got the unmitigated balls to lecture others on "hate"? Get the !@#$ out of here. Quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Check my edit of the post you are responding to. It doesn't change the question I asked you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 A non-partisan explanation of "Trickle Down Economic Theory" In a nutshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well. Although trickle-down economics is often associated with the policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the theory dates back to the 1920s. The name also has roots in the '20s, when humorist Will Rogers coined the term, saying, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy" [source: Shafritz]. http://money.howstuf...n-economics.htm Thats an aspect of supply side economics not a unique theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It doesn't change the question I asked you. I'll answer you with a question. Is it better to put things in context or take them out of context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 12, 2012 Author Share Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) This election was about anything BUT the economy. But hey, when the country is in the shitter, we can at least be happy that women get free birth control pills, gays can marry, and illegals can continue to come into the country and get amnesty. Woo boy! And that's the sad part. If the politicians could get out of their own way and stop pandering to stupidity, the election would have been primarily about the economy, which would have given Romney a much better chance. But then you have candidates associated with the GOP making asinine statements about "legitimate rape", etc, and taking ridiculous stances on Gay Rights (read: Civil Rights) and all of a sudden people have to worry about personal freedom first and foremost (as that should always trump any other issue in the USA). Which gop candidates? I actually followed the primaries (for.some.odd reason) and the only candidate I wanted to see win the primaries was Romney because looking at his background, I knew he was much more moderate than he made himself out to be. That being said, I agree the gop has a lot of problems but it wasn't their candidate. Not just the Presidential candidates, although guys like Santorum, Perry and Gingrich are basically un-electable given their ridiculously right stances. And I wont even bother getting into the jokes that were Bachman and Cain. Romney not immediately distancing himself from the Akin and Mourdock campaigns was a huge mistake. I dont get why a guy like Romney, who has been historically so moderate, pinned his campaign to pandering to the extreme right instead of being the guy almost everyone could get behind. But I believe that speaks more about the state of the Republican party than it does Romney's personal character. When you combine soundbites from Santorum+Perry+Bachman+Akin+Mourdock, it makes it very easy for any opponent to say "Listen to the people that represent this party, and ask yourself if this is the direction you want to take America". With all the stupidity that came out of their mouths, and Romney keeping himself tied to them (and even RE-STATING his support for Mourdock), Im not surprised with the outcome one bit. And then it comes out that the VP candidate Paul Ryan worked with Akin on a bill that re-defines rape! I mean, we're not talking about "free birth control". We're talking about rape! Possibly the dumbest thing Ive ever seen a candidate do or say. Let alone multiple candidates making the same mistake! I find it unfortunate that in this day and age we are still having to argue about personal liberty and individual freedom instead of focusing on how to fix the economic issues we face. Edited November 12, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I'll answer you with a question. Is it better to put things in context or take them out of context? Of course it's better to put things in context. But the question remains, which version of the whole picture will you accept as valid? Because that determines what you'll accept as a valid context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 This election was about anything BUT the economy. But hey, when the country is in the shitter, we can at least be happy that women get free birth control pills, gays can marry, and illegals can continue to come into the country and get amnesty. Woo boy! How can the election be about the economy when 99% of the population, including our elected officials, have no clue about economics? The vast majority of the population looks at economic performance not in the context of a business cycle but rather views the Dow as a proxy for economic performance and attributes its rise and fall with Presidential success. I've seen that sentiment expressed here a number of times, even from very intelligent contributors. Most view the economy as a zero sum game. How many times have you heard bewilderingly stupid remarks like "I care more about people than the economy"? The presidential election will never really be about the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I wasn't trying to bash Obama or praise Bush. I was simply telling Rhode Island Red that the way he presented the statistics from that link gave a dishonest and incomplete picture of unemployment figures. He could have just posted what I did from his link, but went out of his way to come up with his own way to post the information. I wasn't trying to praise Bush either. Bashing Barry though... Why do Republicans only bring this up during Democratic Administrations? And the Obamacare rant is just a little premature. Let's at least wait until ACA is fully implemented. Kind of like how Romneycare was supposed to tank the Massachusetts economy, but didn't. Fine. Apply those not in the workforce to Bush's years. Here's a hint: it still doesn't look good for Barry. Nevermind that Bush had nothing to do with the housing crash, 9/11, or Katrina, which were huge hits to the economy. As for Obamacare and Romneycare, Romneycare is unsustainable. Guess what Obamacare will prove to be? Yep, you guessed it. And that's the sad part. If the politicians could get out of their own way and stop pandering to stupidity, the election would have been primarily about the economy, which would have given Romney a much better chance. But then you have candidates associated with the GOP making asinine statements about "legitimate rape", etc, and taking ridiculous stances on Gay Rights (read: Civil Rights) and all of a sudden people have to worry about personal freedom first and foremost (as that should always trump any other issue in the USA). Every Repub denounced Akin's and Moudock's stupid statements. Moreover Romney repeatedly said that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and his history of supporting abortion should have made anyone with half a brain realize he was just going along with the party, not unlike Barry did with gay marriage, which he's conveniently done another about-face on. How can the election be about the economy when 99% of the population, including our elected officials, have no clue about economics? The vast majority of the population looks at economic performance not in the context of a business cycle but rather views the Dow as a proxy for economic performance and attributes its rise and fall with Presidential success. I've seen that sentiment expressed here a number of times, even from very intelligent contributors. Most view the economy as a zero sum game. How many times have you heard bewilderingly stupid remarks like "I care more about people than the economy"? The presidential election will never really be about the economy. Yep. And that's why the country is going down the shitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Of course it's better to put things in context. But the question remains, which version of the whole picture will you accept as valid? Because that determines what you'll accept as a valid context. Quit playing games. Which version of the whole picture will I accept as valid? Maybe one that takes in a multitude of factors and measures and will provide a conclusion that makes sense. You took raw data and arbitrarily used it to "prove" a point that would appear was previously determined by you. Your partial information may be somewhat factual but not for the reasons you espouse. I could tell you my car gets 150 mpg and be factual, but since I didn't tell you that it did that for only a mile when I had it in neutral coasting down a mountain, my veracity should be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 ...my veracity should be questioned. Well, that's a step in the right direction. And can you please point out where and when I said that what I posted proved anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Well, that's a step in the right direction. And can you please point out where and when I said that what I posted proved anything? Cute, proving again you can take things out of context. You arbitrarily bunched your information together to get a certain result. You also think you can set up a multiple answer quiz to get me to play on your grounds. Ain't gonna happen. You see, the conclusion comes afterwards, not beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I dont get why a guy like Romney, who has been historically so moderate, pinned his campaign to pandering to the extreme right The simple fact that you keep bringing this point up only illustrates how little you understand beyond what you hear from others. If you had even the slightest grasp on reality, you would know that Romney specifically stayed away from what progressives like you consider to be "far right." He avoided talk radio like the plague...nary a word to the likes of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other people you think make up the "extreme right." Freaking guy didn't even do an interview on O'Reilly. He made maybe one appearance on Hannity. You can pop off at the mouth all you like about what a progressive like YOU thinks is wrong with the opposing party, but in the end it came down to one very simple, obvious truth: the takers outnumber the wagon pullers. It's just that simple. My recommendation to progressive like yourself is very simple: stop trying to tell the right what is wrong with them and start figuring out how a fewer number of people are going to have the strength to pull that freakin' wagon, because many of us are done pulling. But hey...AKIN! Murdock! Abortion! Extremists! Bachmann-Palin-Overdrive!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts