| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
How to talk to a liberal
All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous
enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy |
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Why don't you use Google to answer your question? Here's the first page that I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit..._Indian_Ocean_ earthquake It clearly demonstrates that the people in the USA have donated far less than their poorer cousins in most other countries. Read it and weep! Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy Most of the affected people are not socialists. They have to earn every single cent that they spend. Haven't you heard of people who work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour? Do you really think that they are socialists? Regards Donal -- |
You can't talk to a liberal, because liberals invent facts to justify
their positions. In this case the liberals would have you believe the US government is doing a poor job, when in fact, the truth is the majority of the aid, not counting military resources comes from the US. Neal's qustion is valid. How much are the limo liberals contributing? I'd like to know how much money John Kerry is giving? My estimate, $5. Bill Clinton is struggling to find someone to pay for his contrubution, or else for a way to get credit for someone elses contributions. My estimate. $5 "Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Why don't you use Google to answer your question? Here's the first page that I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit..._Indian_Ocean_ earthquake It clearly demonstrates that the people in the USA have donated far less than their poorer cousins in most other countries. Read it and weep! Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy Most of the affected people are not socialists. They have to earn every single cent that they spend. Haven't you heard of people who work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour? Do you really think that they are socialists? |
You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse
has happened? These statements of your lack any foundation of understanding of the facts. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message ... You can't talk to a liberal, because liberals invent facts to justify their positions. In this case the liberals would have you believe the US government is doing a poor job, when in fact, the truth is the majority of the aid, not counting military resources comes from the US. Neal's qustion is valid. How much are the limo liberals contributing? I'd like to know how much money John Kerry is giving? My estimate, $5. Bill Clinton is struggling to find someone to pay for his contrubution, or else for a way to get credit for someone elses contributions. My estimate. $5 "Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Why don't you use Google to answer your question? Here's the first page that I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit..._Indian_Ocean_ earthquake It clearly demonstrates that the people in the USA have donated far less than their poorer cousins in most other countries. Read it and weep! Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy Most of the affected people are not socialists. They have to earn every single cent that they spend. Haven't you heard of people who work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour? Do you really think that they are socialists? |
You need to get your facts straight. Or is 'straight' a word you are adverse to, Gaynzy? Tell me just who it was who said cutting taxes improves productivity. No conservative ever made that claim. It is nothing more than liberal idiocy. Cutting taxes stimulates the economy. That's a true statement that conservatives and all respectable economists make. Cutting taxes reduces the deficit in the long run. You Democrats lost. The majority of people know your tax and spend policies don't work to improve an economy. Now, shut your piehole you little faggot! CN "JG" wrote in message ... You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse has happened? These statements of your lack any foundation of understanding of the facts. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message ... You can't talk to a liberal, because liberals invent facts to justify their positions. In this case the liberals would have you believe the US government is doing a poor job, when in fact, the truth is the majority of the aid, not counting military resources comes from the US. Neal's qustion is valid. How much are the limo liberals contributing? I'd like to know how much money John Kerry is giving? My estimate, $5. Bill Clinton is struggling to find someone to pay for his contrubution, or else for a way to get credit for someone elses contributions. My estimate. $5 "Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Why don't you use Google to answer your question? Here's the first page that I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit..._Indian_Ocean_ earthquake It clearly demonstrates that the people in the USA have donated far less than their poorer cousins in most other countries. Read it and weep! Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy Most of the affected people are not socialists. They have to earn every single cent that they spend. Haven't you heard of people who work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour? Do you really think that they are socialists? |
And I wonder how much Bobsprit donated to the cause.
He can spend 500 bucks on a breast pump but I bet he hasn't given a plug nickel to the tsunami relief charities. There's one thing we can all be sure of, though, Bobsprit and the other whining, scumbag liberals will continue to spew their anti-American bile as long as they draw fetid breath. CN "Bart Senior" wrote in message ... You can't talk to a liberal, because liberals invent facts to justify their positions. In this case the liberals would have you believe the US government is doing a poor job, when in fact, the truth is the majority of the aid, not counting military resources comes from the US. Neal's qustion is valid. How much are the limo liberals contributing? I'd like to know how much money John Kerry is giving? My estimate, $5. Bill Clinton is struggling to find someone to pay for his contrubution, or else for a way to get credit for someone elses contributions. My estimate. $5 "Donal" wrote "Capt. Neal®" wrote All these pathetic liberals whining about the US not being generous enough with our donations to the Tsunami victims can be put in their place (the bottom of the cedar bucket) by asking them one simple question and insisting they answer it. That question is, "How much of your own money and time have you donated to the victims?" Why don't you use Google to answer your question? Here's the first page that I found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit..._Indian_Ocean_ earthquake It clearly demonstrates that the people in the USA have donated far less than their poorer cousins in most other countries. Read it and weep! Remember the words of Gordon Liddy. "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy Most of the affected people are not socialists. They have to earn every single cent that they spend. Haven't you heard of people who work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour? Do you really think that they are socialists? |
"Bart Senior" wrote in message ... You can't talk to a liberal, because liberals invent facts to justify their positions. In this case the liberals would have you believe the US government is doing a poor job, when in fact, the truth is the majority of the aid, not counting military resources comes from the US. What, apart from a misplaced sense of moral superiority, makes you write such nonsense? Do you really believe that 51%, or more, of the aid is coming from the US? The facts would suggest that the US has actually donated less than 15% of the aid. When you take into account the fact that you have 25% of the world's wealth, you contribution looks a bit mean. Japan is the biggest donor - in absolute terms. Most other developed countries have donated more in terms of percentage of GNP. Even the French have far outstripped the US efforts in dollars per person. Neal's qustion is valid. How much are the limo liberals contributing? It's really sad that you should attempt to score political points out of such a disaster. I'd like to know how much money John Kerry is giving? My estimate, $5. Why do you want to know what Kerry is giving? Would it affect your personal donation? Bill Clinton is struggling to find someone to pay for his contrubution, or else for a way to get credit for someone elses contributions. My estimate. $5 You are beginning to sound as if you are trying to justify the fact that you gave nothing at all. Even worse, your twisted view seems to be designed to encourage others to give less. Shame on you, Bart. You have no idea what Kerry, or Clinton, have donated - and yet you are willing to propogate your(politically motivated) lies in an effort to deprive the weakest people of the chance of life. Bart, your $1 could provide enough drinking water to save a life. Does it really matter what Kerry gave? Regards Donal -- |
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... When did natural disasters become a sporting event? Huh? I'm objecting to the sense of moral superiority that is emanating from the stingiest donors. I'm not saying that you should donate more. I'm saying that you should stop boasting about your small contribution. You've got 25% of the planet's welath - and you're not afraid to boast about it. For God's sake, don't boast about contributing less than 15% of the aid that has been promised. Regards Donal -- |
How come when it suits, you foreigners claim the USA is in financial
trouble and the dollar is going down, BUT when you feel we're not sending enough aid somewhere, we're the wealthiest country in the world? "Donal" wrote in message ... "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... When did natural disasters become a sporting event? Huh? I'm objecting to the sense of moral superiority that is emanating from the stingiest donors. I'm objecting to the ''we sent more aid than you, nya, nya'' attitude. Shouldn't it be enough that we, along with countless others are helping? Do you think the volunteers digging out bodies are keeping score? Scotty You've got 25% of the planet's welath - and you're not afraid to boast about it. For God's sake, don't boast about contributing less than 15% of the aid that has been promised. Regards Donal -- |
Both are true. There's no contradiction. Of course, you would have had to
graduate from Jr. High to know that. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... How come when it suits, you foreigners claim the USA is in financial trouble and the dollar is going down, BUT when you feel we're not sending enough aid somewhere, we're the wealthiest country in the world? "Donal" wrote in message ... "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... When did natural disasters become a sporting event? Huh? I'm objecting to the sense of moral superiority that is emanating from the stingiest donors. I'm objecting to the ''we sent more aid than you, nya, nya'' attitude. Shouldn't it be enough that we, along with countless others are helping? Do you think the volunteers digging out bodies are keeping score? Scotty You've got 25% of the planet's welath - and you're not afraid to boast about it. For God's sake, don't boast about contributing less than 15% of the aid that has been promised. Regards Donal -- |
You need to get out more Dave. I just heard it on NPR. Teri Gross
interviewed the author of The State of Working American 2004/2005. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:17:24 -0800, "JG" said: You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse has happened? Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. |
NPR is pure, unadulterated, leftist pap. No wonder you liberals
have little idea how the real world operates. You brainwash yourselves with propaganda. Sad that you waste your brains away like that. CN "JG" wrote in message ... You need to get out more Dave. I just heard it on NPR. Teri Gross interviewed the author of The State of Working American 2004/2005. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:17:24 -0800, "JG" said: You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse has happened? Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. |
Dave wrote:
Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. There's been an increase in productivity? ... Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. Quotes, please. I'd particularly like to see references proving that productivity increases from 2000 - 2004 are geater than productivity increases 1994 - 2000. We have had an increase in debt, both public and private, which is greater than the increase in GDP. We have had an increase in the imbalance of trade. We have had a decrease in jobs, and a decrease in average real income. I bet that you'll either ignore this post, with it's inconvenient facts, or else quibble over definitions and declare that you've "won" ... and then repeat that liberals are all wrong etc etc. DSK |
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:17:24 -0800, "JG" said: You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse has happened? Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. You're right. You just can't trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They don't publish very detailed numbers for recent years, but the "output per hour" numbers show little increase (if any) in the last 4 years. Manufacturing may be slightly better than business, but this is offset by the loss of manufacturing jobs. http://www.bls.gov/lpc/home.htm The specific promise of the tax cuts was an increase in quality jobs; this simply has not happened. The primary affect of the tax cuts has been to put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest 1%. |
hey Gaynz, you forgot my apple pie yesterday.
SV "JG" wrote in message ... Both are true. There's no contradiction. Of course, you would have had to graduate from Jr. High to know that. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... How come when it suits, you foreigners claim the USA is in financial trouble and the dollar is going down, BUT when you feel we're not sending enough aid somewhere, we're the wealthiest country in the world? "Donal" wrote in message ... "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... When did natural disasters become a sporting event? Huh? I'm objecting to the sense of moral superiority that is emanating from the stingiest donors. I'm objecting to the ''we sent more aid than you, nya, nya'' attitude. Shouldn't it be enough that we, along with countless others are helping? Do you think the volunteers digging out bodies are keeping score? Scotty You've got 25% of the planet's welath - and you're not afraid to boast about it. For God's sake, don't boast about contributing less than 15% of the aid that has been promised. Regards Donal -- |
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:11:53 -0800, "JG" said: I just heard it on NPR And we know NPR always gets things right, right? From http://www.econop.org/pressreleases/stateof.htm. "The study finds that despite recent economic gains, the living standards of the typical American worker have not fully recovered from the early 1990s recession _nor benefited from the overall growth in productivity_." So it looks like either he misspoke or you misheard. No. You misread. The book, and the statement you quote, is referring to the time period 1998-1999, and was posted several years ago. The quote on NPR referred to the last 4 years. The speaker was one author of this book: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_swa2004 |
Dave wrote:
Can't really quibble with your definitions since you didn't define productivity. (Productivity was the subject of the post, not debt, trade balance, employment or real income.) It's generally understood to mean output per hour of labor input. I see. So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the other negative factors in the current economy? Typically it increases as employment falls, continues to rise for a period after employment increases, and then falls as employment increases further. ??? According to whom or what? By definition, if GDP rises while man-hours employed remains constant, or if GDP stays constant while man-hours employed falls, then "productivity" rises. However if laborers are forced to work off the clock, or physical production is moved overseas and yet included in our GDP, or if flipping burgers is redefined as "industrial production," then a proclaimed "rise in productivity" doesn't mean a darn thing. There comes a point at which adding more people comes more and more to resemble pushing on a string. Yep. The question is, which end of the string are you on? Regards Doug King |
See Jeff's post. Sorry Dave.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:11:53 -0800, "JG" said: I just heard it on NPR And we know NPR always gets things right, right? From http://www.econop.org/pressreleases/stateof.htm. "The study finds that despite recent economic gains, the living standards of the typical American worker have not fully recovered from the early 1990s recession _nor benefited from the overall growth in productivity_." So it looks like either he misspoke or you misheard. |
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... How come when it suits, you foreigners I'm not a foreigner! You are. In fact, you're not really a proper foreigner. You're an ex-colonial, which is a bit better than a complete foreigner. Proper foreigners cannot understand English. claim the USA is in financial trouble and the dollar is going down, BUT when you feel we're not sending enough aid somewhere, we're the wealthiest country in the world? Goof grief! Are you playing the "victim" card again? The falling dollar is helping your economy. The Tsunami killed 50% more innocent people in a day, than Bush did in a year! Think about it. Regards Donal -- |
"Donal" wrote I'm not a foreigner! You are. In fact, you're not really a proper foreigner. You're an ex-colonial, which is a bit better than a complete foreigner. I'm an American! Proper foreigners cannot understand English. We speak American here. claim the USA is in financial trouble and the dollar is going down, BUT when you feel we're not sending enough aid somewhere, we're the wealthiest country in the world? Goof grief! Are you playing the "victim" card again? No, I'm mearly pointing out your flip flopping ways. Mmmm, who was that flip flopping loser that lost the election? Forgot his name already. The Tsunami killed 50% more innocent people in a day, than Bush did in a year! Think about it. For how long? Scotty |
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:38:02 -0500, DSK said: I see. So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the other negative factors in the current economy? Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been declining. Dave I heard the same interview that Jon quoted. The author stated that productivity since the tax cut [I paraphrase] "has not gone up. In fact, the opposite is true." However, in the except from the book there are a number of comments to the effect that productivity has gone up. I note, though, that it goes into great detail in pointing out that this increasing in productivity has not resulted in a matching increase in real wages - something that often happened in the past. |
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:14:08 -0800, "JG" said: See Jeff's post. Sorry Dave. See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I expected. does that surprise you? |
Read the rest of it dumbass.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:49:31 -0500, Jeff Morris said: No. You misread. The book, and the statement you quote, is referring to the time period 1998-1999, and was posted several years ago. The quote on NPR referred to the last 4 years. Quite right about the dates, Jeff. Here's what the 2004/2005 version said about productivity: "One positive development over the recovery is the 3.8% annual productivity growth between 2000 and 2003, up from the 2.4% growth in the late 1990s and the minimal 1.4% annual growth from 1973 to 1995." As I said in an earlier post, those of us who read the financial press rather than propaganda sheets are well aware of the productivity situation over the last few years. Dave. |
Scotti Potti can't discuss it, so all he can do is shout and call names.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:14:08 -0800, "JG" said: See Jeff's post. Sorry Dave. See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I expected. does that surprise you? |
zactly...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:38:02 -0500, DSK said: I see. So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the other negative factors in the current economy? Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been declining. Dave I heard the same interview that Jon quoted. The author stated that productivity since the tax cut [I paraphrase] "has not gone up. In fact, the opposite is true." However, in the except from the book there are a number of comments to the effect that productivity has gone up. I note, though, that it goes into great detail in pointing out that this increasing in productivity has not resulted in a matching increase in real wages - something that often happened in the past. |
So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy? Dave wrote: Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been declining. I think that you've made a nunmber of gross errors of your own, and the "financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda. A serious case could be made that productivity has increased, especially in the last year. However a case could also be made that it hasn't. Certainly this possible increase has not led to any great upswing elsewhere in our economy, as has happened in other times. DSK |
You're not hiding your ignorance Dave. Oh well, we tried....
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:16:21 -0800, "JG" said: Read the rest of it dumbass. Does the rest of it contradict what I quoted and confirm your absurd claim that productivity has been declining over the last 4 years? If not, there's not point in reading the rest of it, since that was the only issue I addressed. Dave |
"You need to get out more Dave. I just heard it on NPR. Teri Gross
interviewed the author of The State of Working American 2004/2005." -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:05:28 -0500, "Scott Vernon" said: See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I expected. does that surprise you? I do seem to consistently overestimate Jon's willingness or ability to report facts accurately. Dave |
Well, Dave is working right, so therefore everything is ok.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "DSK" wrote in message . .. So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the other negative factors in the current economy? Dave wrote: Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been declining. I think that you've made a nunmber of gross errors of your own, and the "financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda. A serious case could be made that productivity has increased, especially in the last year. However a case could also be made that it hasn't. Certainly this possible increase has not led to any great upswing elsewhere in our economy, as has happened in other times. DSK |
the
"financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda Dave wrote: I gotta say that as between the NY Times and the WSJ I'd rely on the latter to get the facts straight. Why? Because the WSJ tickles the inner fascist and the NY Times offends your finely honed hypocrisy? I bet I can name the WSJ writers that you don't like. ... And if you were a regular reader of that paper you'd realize that while the Journal's editorial pages generally take a decidedly conservative point of view, its news staff and news articles definitely do not. Depends on who is writing them and what the issue is. For example, back in 2001 they had a long & whiny "news" story about how Alan Greenspan had *not* meddled in politics by changing the rates against the indicators three times in a row right before the election... all they accomplished was to conclusively prove (to the unbiased reader, at least) that he did. But neo-conservatives seem to gobble up that kind of fantasy. I read the WSj myself and rely on it for serious business reporting. But I don't rely on it solely (just like navigating a boat) and I certainly don't think it's infallible. A serious case could be made that productivity has increased, especially in the last year. However a case could also be made that it hasn't. OK, I'll bite. What's the case for the proposition the productivity hasn't increased. Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods. Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime paid at regular wage. Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods Accounting irregularities skewing returns Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks) Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital) In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability. DSK |
Dave wrote:
... the Times has time and again been blinded by its reporters' biases and sloppy editorial supervision. Remember Jason Blair? So, just one anecdote "proves" the whole thing is rotten, as far as you're concerned? ... But generally the reporters tend to be of a moderate to very slightly liberal bent. The Wall Street Journal? Surely you jest. This is symptomatic of your problem... and lots of other people... you are enslaved by your prejudices. If you disagree, it's liberal bias. If it's pro-Bush/Cheney, it's hard fact. The direct evidence of your own eyes doesn't seem to weigh in. You don't want to see America prosper & succeed, you want to see "liberals" suffer. Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods. Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime paid at regular wage. Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods Accounting irregularities skewing returns Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks) Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital) So you are persuaded that productivity has not increased? I don't find the above very persuasive. Of course not. It doesn't agree with the pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda you so eagerly swallow. In any event, I'm not claiming that productivity has definitely not increased, but I find it hard to believe that it has increased significantly enough to affect the US economy... because the US economy remains unaffected by signs of it. In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability. Jon's claims were about productivity, not profitability. True. ... I'm sure he would be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up. Why is it all about hatred for those you disagree with? That's a very poor attitude, Dave. DSK |
The Wall Street Journal? Surely you jest.
Dave wrote: Not at all. Remember, we're talking about the news staff, not the editorial pages. The WSJ is rather conservative, in the real sense of following conservative principles. They don't go in much for neo-conservative hogwash, but they lean more that way than the other. If you see "liberal bias" in any of their articles it's because your sight is warped. The topic under discussion is whether it has increased, not by how much. OK riddle me this... if these wonderful tax cuts are so great for the economy, how come most economic indicators are still either luke warm or outright in the dumper, and the only thing you can say is that "productivity has increased" and that really can't be proven, nor has it had any notable effect. Now you're reduced to saying that the "productivity increase" still counts the same if it is so small it can't be measured, just to try and prove all those dadgum libby-rulls wrong. You're talking through your hat. Bush's tax cuts have put millions in the pockets of the US's wealthiest citizens, and that's about all it's done. If you're in favor of that, then fine. Just be honest about it. ... I'm sure he would be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up. Why is it all about hatred for those you disagree with? That's a very poor attitude, Dave. Calling somebody on something when he's got his facts wrong isn't hatred. Probably not, but going on and on about "stuck pigs" is not an example of "calling somebody on it." It's simply an interest in truth. Oh yeah. DSK |
....Bush's tax cuts have put millions in
the pockets of the US's wealthiest citizens, and that's about all it's done. If you're in favor of that, then fine. Just be honest about it. Dave wrote: Ever heard the term "straw man?" In case you haven't, it's the technique of fabricating an argument the other guy didn't make so you can attack your own fabricated argument. The above is a classic example. ??? Did you say that President Bush's tax cuts were good for the economy? Did you offer this hypothetical productivity increase as a prime example of how the Bush/Cheney economy is booming? Did you call Jonathan Ganz names and cast aspersions at his statements on the subject? I don't see a straw man at all. Looks like a major backpedal... retrorocket with aftrburners... DSK |
selective memory is a powerful thing
Dave wrote: Yes. In your case it seems to take the form of forgetting who said what. O contraire. On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:17:24 -0800, "JG" said: You mean like the tax cut improving productivity, when in fact the reverse has happened? Dave wrote: Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. Due to the tax cut??? Propaganda sheet? 4 years? So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the other negative factors in the current economy? Dave wrote: Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been declining. "Gross error"?? Dave wrote: No. Because the Times has time and again been blinded by its reporters' biases and sloppy editorial supervision. Remember Jason Blair? Jason Blair happened once. So why the "again and again" unless it simply drives home the fact that you don't like the Times because it's somewhat liberal. OK, I'll bite. What's the case for the proposition the productivity hasn't increased. Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods. Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime paid at regular wage. Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods Accounting irregularities skewing returns Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks) Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital) So you are persuaded that productivity has not increased? I don't find the above very persuasive. Of course not... but at least you knocked off the slander & the innuendo. In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability. Jon's claims were about productivity, not profitability. I'm sure he would be screaming like a stuck pig if corporate profits were also up. But now he's "screaming like a stuck pig." Where was that about a straw man? Looks like you're right in the cross-hairs, Dave. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: Sorry, Jon, you're just plain wrong here, unless you propose to argue that the increase in productivity over the last 4 years is the result of some other factor than the tax cut. Those of us who read the financial press rather than the liberals' propaganda sheets know that productivity has been increasing. Due to the tax cut??? Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation has been increasing. The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*. Regards Donal -- |
just noticing the title of the this thread.
oh......i get it. ganz is involved in this somehow. gf. "Dave" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:31:19 -0500, DSK said: selective memory is a powerful thing Yes. In your case it seems to take the form of forgetting who said what. |
Due to the tax cut???
Dave wrote: Note that in the first instance, I gave Jon the benefit of the doubt. His statement could be read to claim either that productivity had gone down, or that it increased for reasons other than the tax cut. (Admittedly a strained reading in light of "the reverse" but I gave him an opportunity to back pedal.) He declined to make the argument I suggested might be defensible. How long have you practiced ballet, tap-dancing and back-pedaling like this? Answer the question: In your opinion, is this hypothetical "increase in productivity" due to the Bush tax cuts? "Gross error"?? Dave wrote: You wouldn't say it's a gross error to say productivity was declining when in fact if was increasing? The error wasn't Jon's, and it wasn't necessarily "gross." I've already told you once, but I'll tell you again. I read the Times fairly regularly. Blair was a single example people are familiar with. But the Times regularly omits important facts, gets them wrong, or buries them at the end of their stories. As does *any* publication. The NY Times is no worse than many others, and better than most. I can't believe I'm defending anything with the name "New York" but your attitude is an example of head-in-the-sand stupidity on the part of libby-rull hating "conservative" attitude currently in fashion. It's nothing more than an updated version of the bigoted stupidy of the Commie-chasers of decades ago. DSK |
The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*.
Dave wrote: I think that's true. But when we talk "technology" we're talking capital investment. Huh? ... If you decrease the tax on returns from capital investment you increase the incentive to make that investment. Basic economics. True enough, if a bit overly simplistic. But I think you should look up the basic definition of "technology" in the context of economics. I'll wait. DSK |
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:10:39 -0000, "Donal" said: Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation has been increasing. The main driving force behind productivity increases is *technology*. I think that's true. But when we talk "technology" we're talking capital investment. If you increase the tax on returns from capital investment you reduce the incentive to make that investment. If you decrease the tax on returns from capital investment you increase the incentive to make that investment. Basic economics. I see that you have tried to sidestep the issue. "Productivity has been increasing for hundreds of years, while taxation has been increasing." You need to rethink your understanding of the problem. [hint] Overall production is more important than productivity. Regards Donal -- |
Dave wrote:
As you've already indicated you don't buy the argument that productivity didn't increase, why are you calling it "hypothetical/" Because it's too small to measure reliably and has no effect whatever on the rest of the economy. It's like designing a car with a very fuel efficient engine, then throwing sawdust into it so it barely chugs along, blowing smoke and burning excess fuel, and then raving about the fuel efficient engine. It's a red herring at best. I think productivity was affected by a number of factors, including earlier increases in the number of temporary workers who could be let go more easily than permanent employees when demand fell, caution on the part of most businesses about increasing their numbers of employees as demand for their products increased, and reduced costs of capital expenditures, including both low interest rates and a reduction in the tax on dividends. Not to mention cutting benefits & pay for workers, resulting in increased productivity in terms of labor costs. You're citing all this to show what, how great the Bush Administration is managing the nation's economy? I'd agree with that. But given the Times's history and reputation I would expect it to be more than just a bit better than the average bear, just as I expect the Metropolitan Opera to be more than just a bit better than the average opera company, and the Royal Shakespeare company to be more than just a bit better than your local repertory company. It hasn't come close to meeting that expectation. In other words, you demand that the NY Times meet your personal standards of truth & accuracy, even though you're most often offended by same; although you yourself tell fibs trying to support your opinions... and you admit that it's a good publication, just not superior enough to meet your double standard?!? I knew that neo-conservatives were very short on logic & consistancy, but you're nuttier than Bubbles. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com