What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

You're a BIG help, Dys! Sometimes this thread reminds me of the old joke - Knock knock, who's there? Max. Max who? Max no difference!" OK, I've got to leave, try to keep some order around here

Popitz. He was arrested in Berlin on 21 July 1944, hanged on 2 February 1945 at Plötzensee.

Ah, that clears it up. Speaking of Max, though, I see one previous poster was a keen fan of Max von Prittwitz und Gaffron. We can expect endless verbosity and pomposity from that quarter as well, though your hysterical sidekick, OE, is and remains undisputedly #1 <G>

There you have your problem: based on short comments, you're jumping to conclusions and then mistake your conclusions for factual knowledge about the positions of other posters. From there, you generally proceed to present that assumed factual knowledge with a good deal of pomposity, denigrating any poster who dares to disagree with your assumptions-dressed-up-as-facts.

I don't know whether or not people have pointed that out to you in real live as well, or if they're just making fun of you behind your back, but it's an obvious enough pattern.

As another example of that, I would present your false assumption that I'm a lawyer.

Representations to your legal expertise were made online by Walter - definitely a reliable source. Whether you're admitted to the bar, or practicing law, I don't know and truly do not care - your behavior is so unprofessional as to discredit whatever training you've had. GOOD bye.

Cui honorem, honorem: my legal knowledge is only minimal, especially compared to oe's.

The Germans here appear to be rather testy today.

Is that bad?

And from there you jumped to conclusions, as you usually do. That is exactly what I'm talking about.

The same goes for my rather harmless reply to okie that was based on earlier discussions on this forum about the Laffer curve that he and I participated in, whereas you, to the best of my knowledge, did not. Nevertheless you found it necessary to claim superior knowledge of his positions on the subject and to dismiss my comment as "idiotic".

You are absolutely entitled to call my reactions to those kinds of comments "unprofessional", but you should maybe take a moment to ponder where exactly that leaves you.

If you actually read the contents of many of my posts, particularly on this thread, rather than judging them by who posted them, you would have noticed that we are not even in disagreement on many points. In spite of that, you seem to have a Tourette's-like need to attack posters that you have had prior disagreements with in an amazingly vicious and spiteful way, regardless of the actual contents of the posts you are attacking.

You might be inclined to find that kind of behaviour in a discussion acceptable, and I have no problem with that either. However, I will point out that it's entirely up to you to set the tone of any kind of discussion with me.

Just an observation - not a value judgment.

I'm not nearly as serious as they.

Neither am I..

Though I did like High Sea's lighthearted cartoon reply to an otherwise somewhat nasty insult.

Much of what HS posts here is pompous and it is often insulting, as OE points out, to anyone who has the temerity not to agree with her. But what is laughably absurd are her constant comments which seem to assert that she is some kind of schoolmarm, that she has some kind of control here--comments about how everyone should behave.

I suspect she suffers from delusions of adequacy.

That's the essence of sexy Set.

Cutting tax rates can increase tax revenue, and cutting tax rates can sometimes decrease tax revenues, depending upon where we are on the Laffer curve, to the left or to the right of the peak in terms of tax rates, that is what I believe. The Laffer Curve does exist, it has to, by virtue of simple mathematical and economic principles. 0% tax rate brings in no tax revenue, and 100% would bring in a paltry sum compared to some rate in between, which would represent the peak of a parabolic curve. I know, we have argued about this to no end already, but come on, common sense tells us it exists. Where the peak is, I don't know, it could vary depending upon situation or point in the economic cycles otherwise, and the exact shape of the curve could vary, but the overall general shape would look like the Laffer curve.

In regard to raising or lowering tax rates and balancing the budget, there are several variables. Conservatives believe in balanced budgets, but they also believe in smaller government, so the political struggle sometimes revolves around reducing taxes as a means to reduce future spending or to limit the invention of new programs, but if conservatives believe that spending is about right and they can control new budgetary increases, they may actually support increasing taxes to balance the budget. So, the situation dictates what conservatives will support, yes, sometimes raising tax rates, but more commonly we are in favor of lowering tax rates, for two possible reasons, one being it may actually bring in more tax revenues by stimulating the economy, and secondly it sometimes is our only means to try to reign in spending. From my observation of politics, if more revenues come in, liberals will increase the pressure to institute even more programs and even more spending, that will increase budgetary pressures in the future, making balanced budgets even more difficult in future years. So it becomes a game of tug of war.

The problem as I see it currently is that government has gotten too big, too expensive, and too invasive, to the point that it will become increasingly difficult, probably impossible, to balance the budget. But I see it, and most conservatives see it as a spending problem, not a problem of insufficient taxati0n. If tax rates keep rising alot more, it will only continue to strangle the economy to the point that there still will not be enough money to pay for all the government that we have and plan to have.

In contrast, liberals see the problem as simply not enough taxation, not a problem of too much government. It appears to me that they see the economy as a one dimensional organism, it produces what it produces, and if they want to tax it more, just like magic it generates more tax revenue without it affecting the economy one iota. This has to be the case, otherwise they would agree that the Laffer Curve exists.

Wrong on all counts! Not all tax cuts results in increased tax revenue, or all tax increases results an increase in tax revenue.

You live in a never-never land that doesn't exist in real life.

George - the fact is OE cracks me up. He deliberately makes false statements on matters he doesn't know much about, then gets hysterical and throws a hissy fit after being exposed as a fraud.

I don't know why he suffers from this mental imbalance, maybe Walter (who knows him) can explain. At any rate OE isn't accountable for what he says at times, so you can't take offense.

High Seas, You can't accuse someone of making false statements without identifying which statements and why they are false. General accusations mean nothing!

It's easy to identify which statements are meant, Cicerone - if you have followed the thread discussion, which you don't appear to have done. Part of the argument is in German, but I'll come back and explain to you if you like, or you can ask Walter. It was 2 OE false and misleading statements on privatizations / public-private partnerships in Germany conducted by Hjalmar Schacht, and on supply side economics in the US. If you truly can't spot them at least you can spot the 2 resulting statements where OE became hysterical and started spouting insults

Sorry, must leave. Maybe someone else can help you if you cannot locate the statements, Cicerone.