Hunting accidents could happen to anybody; for a US vice president to directly contradict sworn testimony from State Dept officials, the VP has to be a liar.
The bottom line is that if you cannot appreciate that you should obey the rules of debate, there is something wrong with you, and one of the rules is that each person gets his chance to speak. In a fair debate, Biden would have been cautioned a few times for interrupting and then been disqualified.
One of the major "rules of debate" is that when a point is made...it should be conceded. Biden made the point that Ryan's math was absurd...and Ryan never conceded that point. In a fair debate, Ryan would have been disqualified.
One person who clearly never shared your opinion that the math involved in supply side economics is absurd was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. You ought to watch this:
0 Replies
MontereyJack
1
Reply
Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:05 pm
You didn't actually listen to that, did you, Ogunga? If you did and you think he's advocating supply side economics, you're an idiot. Straight demand-side all the way. He's advocating a tax cut for workers/consumers, putting more money in their hands, enabling them to satisfy more of their needs and buy more, which will stimulate industry and in turn create more jobs. That's DEMAND. When he made that announcement, if you will actually listen, you will hear they were not in a recession, this was a tactic to prevent a recession. He talks about the system then in place with planned oversupply, i.e. TOO MUCH SUPPLY, which increased money in the hands of workers would draw down. That's similar to the situation we got as a result of the conservative-abetted Great Recession. The economy was overdevelooped (particularly in real estate)--the problem was TOO MUCH SUPPLY and insufficient demand for it because everybody's pocketbooks took huge hits. The economy actually contracted below what it was capable of producing. Additional oversuypply would not have helped at all.Listen to the last thirty seconds or so. Brush up on your economics, Ogunga, you're 180 degrees out of phase with what Kennedy was actually saying.
0 Replies
MontereyJack
3
Reply
Sun 14 Oct, 2012 11:24 pm
But then of course you're pretty much 180 degrees out of phase with the entire world, so i don't know why I;d expect anything different here. No, make that rotated 180 degrees into an entirely different and hitherto unknown dimension.
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.
How is that diffferent from what Kennedy is advocating in the film clip?
0 Replies
MontereyJack
1
Reply
Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:10 am
Because Kennedy emphasized increasing DEMAND, not supply. Listen particularly from about 1:20 on. "Instead of being permanently saddled with excess planned capacity", especially, i.e. too much supply, which wasn't growing the economy. Kennedy knew what he was talking about. Reagan and post-Reaganites who fell for Voodoo Economics (Papa Bush knew what he was talking about too, before he flip-flopped) don't. Let me bring it down to your level, if people aren't buying the stuff you've already got, making more stuff is not going to make the situation better.
0 Replies
parados
2
Reply
Mon 15 Oct, 2012 08:32 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Hunting accidents could happen to anybody;
No, that's not true. If you took an NRA hunter safety course you would know that accidents are the result of carelessness or ignorance.
