[quote]Originally posted by Jenna Banks:
"I see this as an attack hidden inside an "apology," as well as an attempt to save face, so apology not taken."
Dude, please do yourself a huge favor and get over yourself.
I am not conspiring to demean your OPINION or you. What need do I have to save face?
I am a member here, just as you are, and I have an opinion that I am voicing.
Most reasonable ADULTS would see that this is merely a discussion, and clearly I don't agree with your OPINION.
I apologized because clearly I was misunderstood and I believed it may have been due to wording, now I know better. [/quote]
Don't mistake my telling it like it is as my needing to "get over myself."
I've debated online for years. The people that I debate with display very common traits. One of these traits is an attempt to reduce facts, and a reasoned argument, to nothing but an "opinion." When they turn it into an "opinion," it becomes something that's either "right" or "wrong."
That relieves the opposition from dealing with the fact that they're wrong. It relieves them of the need to research their case or mine. It saves them from admitting that they're wrong.
It also saves them from something that bruises their ego... from seeing that they don't have a valid argument.
The cold hard reality is that you could express an opinion, everyone has one of those. You could express a reasoned argument based on facts and logic. Not that many advances one of those. Or, you could just present the cold hard facts.
See the difference in those three levels?
I didn't say that you were trying to demean your opinion on me. I accurately pointed this out as your attack on the facts that I presented. You dismissed them as "opinion," which is a veiled attack on a reasonable argument. You've failed to present an effective counter argument. You tend to use red herring, straw-men and goal moving tactics.
Your failure to address the facts, within the context I'm arguing, is you losing face. You need to save face by dismissing my argument instead of dealing with it... you did it via a phony, self serving, cavalier attitude.
No, most reasonable adults wouldn't have seen the thread we were on as a "discussion." They'd rightfully see it as a debate.
A discussion happens when people are generally agreeing on the topic. People's standings are close enough that they're able to come out of a discussion with a different perspective of things... based on what was said... than what they had when they came in.
That doesn't happen in a debate. You and I disagree with each other, so we were obviously debating, not discussing.
Jenna Banks: You are obviously taking this too personally.
Wrong. Don't mistake my calling you out, on your real intentions, as my "taking" things "too" seriously. I've seen way too many liberal posters employ the same stunts you employed. Easier to dismiss a strong argument than to admit that one is wrong... or to ruin one's ego trying to prove wrong what they know is a good argument.
Jenna Banks: If you cannot stand the heat get out of the damn Political disscusion kitchen...
First, take it away Jenna Banks:
"I will continue to post on the politics board, regardless of what you think of my views." -- Jenna Banks
Thanks Jenna Banks. I would've done that if I didn't get banned again.
Second, imagine if your marksmanship were anything like the "validity" of this one claim. You'd shoot the person standing behind you while attempting to shot the target in front of you.
Keep your day job. You do a piss poor job at profiling.
As much as I debated on Avenue-X, you should've already known how fact deficient your comment is.
How many times did the fact... that I lived for these debates... have to get mentioned before you realize that I thrive in the middle of heated debates? How many times do I have to mention that I'll keep fighting... until the opposition quits... before you realize that I don't quit a debate?
If anybody is having issues with the heat of the debate it's you.
Your emotional reaction to my calling you out speaks volumes.
"And what are you arguing in your "reasonable argument" a position or opinion darling. Interjecting biased facts that clearly support your position does not make your OPINION right." -- Jenna Banks
Wrong. The moment someone uses facts to back their position, they're no longer expressing an opinion. Facts aren't biased. That's almost like saying that "1 + 1 = 2" is "biased" because someone doesn't like the fact that adding one to one result in two.
Facts are facts, whether you agree with them or not.
You're relegating a well thought out, and reasoned argument, to the same level as these statements: "Cupcakes are awesome" and "Sunny days are cool!"
Using right facts to reach the right conclusion makes that conclusion a fact, not an opinion.
"If it isn't permanent it is tempoarary....do you have a different meaning of the word temporary? And again, no one is trying to 'pull' anything. Please argue like an adult and leave your childish conspiracy theories at HOME." -- Jenna Banks
Let's reconstruct that part of our debate:
"3. These rebates aren't a "temporary" boost. Bush did something similar as soon as he entered office. Not only did it lead to our pulling out of the recession, which started when his predecessor was in office by the way, it contributed to heavier economic growths. " - Yours Truly
Your response:
"Why are we in need of the rebates again to "stimulate" our economy AGAIN if Bush's initial rebates worked? Because it was TEMPORARY. It was never meant to be a long-term effect. It is supposed to stimulate economic growth by American's spending money they are given." Jenna Banks
And the statement I made that you responded to:
"I never claimed that his solution was PERMANENT, that's what you're trying to pull here. When you say temporary, we're not talking about something that's going to last for years." - Yours Truly
What part of YOUR statement DIDN'T you understand? Your response amounts to you advancing strawmen arguments.
My statement talked about an effort to jumpstart the economy. The fact that the economy goes up and down in cycles... and has hardly stayed on the crest or trough indefinitely, made your next point mute.
So what's your approach? In stead of addressing the economy's progress, you question why we'd need another stimulus... aka... another attempt to jumpstart a slowing economy.
Now, keep in mind that we're talking about something that has up and down cycles.
I come back and told you that I never claimed that his economic solutions were permanent. No economic solution is permanent. That's what I was talking about.
You need to bolster your reading comprehension abilities... and understand what you're reading... before giving me that smart ass response about "another definition" to "temporary.
That, by the way, represented you using another strawman argument.
This argument was about whether the stimulus would work or not. We're not arguing about whether the solution is going to be temporary, permanent or indefinite.
You need to stick to the topic. Stop using strawman tactics before telling people to start debating like an adult.
"Yes, and then he raised taxes across the board, angering many conservatives." -- Jenna Banks
Wrong. He didn't raise taxes across the board.
Remember, the Republicans controlled Congress until 2006. The tax cuts and rebates happened early in his presidency. How could the conservatives be angry at him, "for raising taxes across the board," if President Bush doesn't have the power to raise taxes on his own?
Again, Congress would have to raise those taxes. Who controlled congress when President Bush got those tax rebates and tax cuts passed? You guessed it, the Republicans.
Your argument doesn't make sense. George Bush and the Republicans didn't raise taxes.
JennaBanks: He imposed more direct, state, and property taxes ... after you have slowly raised taxes on veterans, property, small businesses, and national park enterances.
Really?
Take it away JennaBanks:
"Please argue like an adult and leave your childish conspiracy theories at HOME." - JennaBanks
First, when you said that to me, it didn't apply. I was actually calling it as I see it. Now, when I applied your own comment to you, it was very applicable.
Second, since you didn't get the memo, let me spell this out to you. The STATE, not the federal government, levies STATE taxes. The LOCAL government, not the federal government, levies local property taxes.
So, you pay state taxes to the state... you pay county taxes to the county... you pay city taxes to the city and so on. The state's legislatures and the state governors dictate state taxes. The local counsels, and their chief executives, dictate local taxes.
NOT the president, who influences FEDERAL taxes.
The federal government reduced tax rates. The Republicans had the majority when this happened.
Their actions, on the federal level, won't protect small businesses from facing higher state or local taxes. That's not going to stop veterans groups from having to pay local or state taxes. That's not going to stop the state or local government from increasing your state and local property taxes.
And really, raising taxes on national park entrances?
You could purchase your entrance fees from commercial sites. If these fees go up, it's because these organizations, that run these parks, decided to increase the fee. They might have to get approval first. Either way, that's separate from the federal income tax.
Also, you might be confusing state parks for federal parks.
JennaBanks: Yes, thanks for your 300-1200 rebate of my OWN damned money
Wrong again.
People's rebates didn't represent them getting the taxes that you paid... and your rebate didn't come from the taxes that they paid.
The rebate was the government's way of saying, "look, I took this amount from you, I'm giving you back some of what you gave us!"
Generally speaking... if you didn't have a tax liability, you didn't get a rebate. If your tax liability was smaller than the rebate, you got back what you paid, but not more. The government didn't turn around and give you more than what you gave it.
JennaBanks: Its not just the liberals who are pissed.
If the conservatives get pissed, it's usually for a different reason than what's making the liberals pissed.
"I guess many economists and financial experts are also "mistaking". OPEN YOUR EYES. In which areas is our national economy growing? We have just experienced a huge bank crisis, record rates of inflation, amongs other woes. Its not merely "slower" its almost stagnant." -- Jenna Banks
Here's a link to an NPR article written at the time we had this debate:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90755765
When they say that the economy is tightening, they're saying that the economy is slowing down. Not stagnating. An economy stagnates when it grows at a very slow rate over a very long period. That didn't describe the situation we were in when we had this debate.
Don't assume that because I don't see things the way you do, that I'm "blind" to what's going on. I look at hard core data. I don't base my conclusions on emotions and feelings. This applies with deciding economic growth or recessions. This also applies anywhere involving facts.
Inflation started to pester us in 1998. Prices have gradually gone up since then. Banks have been failing every year, even during an economic expansion.
So what I said, for that time period, still stood. When I said the above, the economy was growing at a slow rate. That rate didn't last long enough to count as "stagnation."
JennaBanks: Who bashed the Iraq war? When?
You did when you said this:
"We have to pay for this HUGE war" - JennaBanks
"As far as the war goes, obviously I disagree" - JennaBanks in response to my support for it
"A war that isn't supported by most of America that is depleating much of our funds" -- JennaBanks
Every person that bashed the wars said pretty much the same things that you said... plus more.
JennaBanks: I stated that it is a war that most of our nation, including some conservatives, are not behind.
This war is one of the things that we have to do, regardless of how many people like it or not.
Again, the American Revolutionary War was an unpopular war. There was a comfortable opposition to it from the loyalists and those who didn't care either way. Maybe we should've surrendered our bid for independence because of the financial costs. Maybe we should've quit become most people opposed it.
Aren't you glad that we didn't?
Most conservatives are behind us winning the war. And guess what?
I've recently combat deployed to Iraq. We won the war with a straight cut victory. We won it without the support of the people that opposed the war... who subsequently don't support us.
Thought I'd nip this part in the bud.
You read that right. People that don't support the Iraq War, don't support the troops. Winning the war is a military's objective. Winning the war means staying until the fight is completely won. Staying until the fight is completely won means fighting the war until it's completely done.
People that oppose the war oppose us staying there until it's completely won. People that oppose our accomplishing our objectives oppose us.
Had we lost that war, our days as a super power, and as a "democracy," would've been numbered. You know what's really tragic? Those opposed to this war have most to lose if the Radical Islamists win this struggle. They wouldn't last long living in a caliphate or emirate.
People that oppose the Iraq War, or Afghanistan War, are useful idiots to our enemies. They definitely don't support the US troops. It's that simple.
JennaBanks: Obviously Clinton wasn't a military president, he is a liberal for God's sake. What did you expect?
First, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson got us involved with wars. They were liberals.
Second, you're advancing another strawman argument. Again, what you said:
"And thanks for the subtle Clinton bash, but that was unneccessary. Not all Liberals are Clinton lovers, but compared to our current resident idiot, I would take him any day. But that is just my opinion." - JennaBanks
You acknowledge being a liberal in that statement. You "thanked" me for that subtle Clinton bash, then turned around and attacked President Bush. You called him an "idiot."
I replied by accurately pointing out that President Clinton was incompetent militarily. Well, thanks to Odumba... or should I say, "O'Carter," I don't consider President Clinton as being the most incompetent president.
Bush was no idiot. He's had more positive effects on the economy than Obama has. Also, the democratic ripple effect his administration argued about? We're seeing that progress before our very eyes. Just ask the former dictators.
JennaBanks: And why do you insist on assuming that all liberals support all liberal ideas.
I never said, or assumed, that all liberals support all liberal ideas.
However, based on what you've said, I've got you pegged as a liberal. Your getting defensive at my attacking Clinton et al speaks volumes.
You're not acting different from the other liberals that I've debated against. You've utilized the same defensive and evasive tactics they've utilized. You're arguing the same liberal talking points I've heard from liberal talking heads, and from the liberals that I've debated against.
It's like that saying... if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
I never said that you support all liberal ideas. I just pointed out that you're behaving like other liberals that I've debated... over the now 8 years of my online debating.
JennaBanks: Just because Clinton was a liberal president, he also did a lot for reforming welfare and other social programs being abused and eating up taxpayer's dollars.
You see, this is what I'm talking about. Like the other liberals, you ignore the fact that it took a Republican Congress to force his hand on welfare and social program reforms.
The Republicans tried, unsuccessfully, to get President Clinton to approve the welfare reform. They tried two times and failed. President Clinton wasn't having it.
So guess what they did? The Republicans made it an issue, in 1996, an election year. Clinton finally signed it into law in 1996 not because he wanted to get rid of taxpayer waste... he did it to improve his re-election chances.
JennaBanks: I am not one to vote a straight ticket. I vote based on ISSUES, not party lines.
I also vote on issues. A liberal that votes straight liberal is also voting on issues. A conservative that votes straight conservative is also voting on issues.
I don't vote because I want to see my party win.
I vote for people that I see will fight and implement the things I believe should be implemented. President Bush et al were my "proxies." I came to similar conclusions they came to. I did so independently.
Don't assume that people, who disagree with you, aren't voting on issues like you are. You're arrogantly assuming that you're "right" when you do. You're also assuming that everybody else is just "blindly" following the leader. Nothing could be further than the truth.
JennaBanks: And Bush's style is that of an idiot with two many guns at his disposal.
Bush's style represents the right course of action for the right problem. Going to war in Iraq was extremely necessary, and was a stroke of genius.
One of the main reasons we're progressing well in Afghanistan... in a way that other powers haven't... is because we built their military up while the Radical Islamists were trying to fight us in Iraq.
I say, "Trying," because we pulverized them militarily. There wasn't a period, during the Iraq War, where we were losing to them.
By the time their efforts in Iraq failed, and they focused on Afghanistan, it was too late. They're doomed to failure there too.
Second, his economic policy was the right medicine for the problem. He recognized a cold hard reality... the rich and superrich represent our country's economic engine. You don't help the economy when you tax the economic engine when the economy is slowing down.
On the other side of the coin, do you want sustained economic growth? Then allow the economic engine to keep most the money it makes.
Bush recognized that. His detractors didn't.
JennaBanks: And obviously too many diehards who will go for anything he does even though he raises their taxes....
First, George Bush didn't raise our taxes. He's not responsible for state and local taxes.
Second, you assume that your side of the argument holds the monopoly on the "truth," or on "what's right." By "logical" extension, those that enthusiastically supported George Bush do so because of who he was... and not because that maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because they came to their own conclusions...
The reality is that the vast majority of us came to our own conclusions. When we defend Bush et al, we're defending our argument... many of their policies.
JennaBanks: You really know how to miss a point.
No, I didn't miss the point, I was right on target. Don't mistake my refusing to follow your red herring trail as my "missing the point." I go for the point that we're debating.
However, it looks like you missed the point of what I was saying. I'll demonstrate that shortly.
JennaBanks: Just because the money is in front of the government dosen't mean we are economically able to use it.
First, that's a big change from your initial, "money isn't there" argument. Your initial thrust was that we were borrowing money to fund these rebates. Notice how you shift and back peddle, while my side remains consistent.
Second, by using your logic, the government should cut spending across the board down to zero.
This means not paying any government agency. Everybody that works for the government gets zero dollars for the year. Every department gets zero dollars for the year. No money is paid toward Medicaid or Medicare. No money is given to pay for federal pensions or government services.
The government comes to a complete stop, because it can't afford to spend the money on itself.
Why?
Every single dime that we get should go toward paying the principle of the debt. Then, what's left over goes to paying down the debt.
We're not receiving enough revenue, in one year, to pay down our debt.
As of the time we debated this, the debt was at 8 to 9 trillion dollars. That's the debt alone. We've been paying the interest down these past decades, rarely paying into the principle.
How much did we collect that year? Approximately 2.7 trillion dollars.
So, by using your logic:
"Just because the money is in front of the government dosen't mean we are economically able to use it." - JennaBanks
Every single dime of that 2.7 trillion dollars collected that year should've gone toward paying our debt down, both principle and interest. Those other agencies and programs? Sorry, we "don't" have the "economic" ability to pay them. The money "isn't" there!
JennaBanks: For example, if I have $10,000nin front of me, but I have 11,000 in bills this month, I SHOULDN'T use the money. I don't "have" money to spend. I am in 1000 worth of debt based on what I have and do not.
First, you're making an "apples to oranges" comparison.
Your original argument was that we didn't have the money to spend in the first place. The implication was that we were giving this money away on borrowed money.
I countered you by saying that the money existed, as the government collects that money every month. Also, that's money that the tax payers already paid.
Now you come back and advance the "economically" able to spend argument. That's two different arguments.
I proved your assumption wrong, and you know it. But, instead of admitting that you were wrong, you shifted goal posts.
Second, you're arguing with contradictions.
If you have $10,000 sitting in front of you, that's $10,000 that you have to spend. Period. It's that simple. How you spend it is up to you, but it's money that you physically have to spend.
Third, let's adjust this so that it'll fit the analogy of what Bush et al tried to do.
Say that you have $11,000 worth of bills, and you have $10,000 in front of you. You know that if you spend $124 of that $10,000 on a room, you'd be able to earn not just $124 back, but $1,500.00 on top of that.
So what do you end up with?
You had this before: $11,000 bills to $10,000 revenue.
Now you have this: $11,000 to $11,500 revenue.
This is an example of what the government wanted to do. Give the tax payers some of their money back. The tax payers turn around and spend the money. Their expenditures excite investors, which excites the people responsible for creating our economy's jobs.
This in tern would increase consumer confidence and cause them to spend more... leading to a self feeding cycle with the economy going up.
That was the hope.
I made the above comparison to explain the government's intention with the rebates... not to try to explain how we could eliminate the debt.
Fourth, you failed to factor another factor that brought us into this mess... excessive government spending in areas we shouldn't be over spending. Don't say the war, as that was very necessary.
I'm an Iraq War veteran and can create an entire thread dedicated to the war's importance.
Even with your example, someone with that many debts would either have to drastically cut spending, or declare bankruptcy.
JennaBanks: Giving meager handouts of a few hundred dollars isn't solving this problem. Although the money is being pumped into our economy temporarily until Americans spend it all (we are spenders mostly,it won't be hard)
First, rebates aren't handouts. Again, a handout is giving someone money that they didn't earn. A rebate is giving someone back a portion of what they paid.
Second, it may not have caused our economy to recover, but it delayed its decent into a recession. The rate of economic decent may have made a difference between the bank failure numbers we had in 2008, and having a hell of a lot more banking failures.
People's psychology plays a big role on whether we have a "bank run" or not.
The positive psychological impact that it had, on those that received the rebates, prevented something worse from happening.
JennaBanks: we need a LONG TERM solution which this administration has failed to provide.
Studied American History? Remembered what you read? Nobody has ever come up with a long term solution to our economy. Our economy has gone up and down in cycles. Our depressions have run in 60 to 90 year cycles.
It has been 8 decades since the Great Depression. We're long over due.
This means that any solution we come up with isn't going to be permanent.
That has to come from our end. Unfortunately, generations of Americans never learn from their parents and grandparents mistakes. That's why our depressions hit us every 6 to 9 decades.
George Bush' provided more solid solutions, for the economy, than his successor has ever done. His rebate solution brought economic growth that lasted years.
Progressive economic policies have failed in the past, they'll continue to fail in the future.
In fact, progressive economic policies are to the economy what laxatives are to someone with diarrhea.
JennaBanks: In my opinion, many of your opinions are pretty weak and one-sided,
Your opinion isn't worth a hill of beans. This is true especially since you didn't have a logical argument. You're really saying that anything that contradicts your opinion is "weak," and "one sided."
I don't see you as a shining example of someone that's "not" one sided. You demonstrate one sidedness throughout your argument. Your opinions are like yesterday's coffee, a week in the bean.
Let's look at cold hard reality. You don't know what you're talking about. Your position kept shifting in that thread. First, you argued that we were in a recession. Then you back peddled and used something else to describe the economy.
Though you held on to many parts of your argument, you shifted from other parts.
The mere fact that you did that proves that your opinion is week.
Also, a look at that thread showed you arguing against every conservative that contributed to that thread. Again, this means that your opinion was one sided.
I remained consistent on that thread. My argument here is consistent with the argument that I made on that thread.
And get this. That consistency remained since we debated on that thread.
The cold hard reality is that you can't prove my argument "wrong." You've miserably failed to address my argument effectively. If my "opinions," were "weak," you'd be able to provide an effective counter argument.
JennaBanks: so please make no mistake about that.
You use that phrase when describing a fact, or describing something that's a sure deal. Your opinion about the facts that I present are just that, your opinion. My argument is reasoned, solid, and based on logic and fact. Make no mistake about that.
JennaBanks: I respect everyone's right to their opinions,
If you respected other's rights to their opinions, you wouldn't have said this:
"...it is really just regurgetated rhetoric..." - JennaBanks
"If you cannot stand the heat get out of the damn Political disscusion kitchen..." - JennaBanks
"Sorry but that is nothing more than a bore... Argue with yourself, not waisting time with your drivel." -- JennaBanks
Those aren't statements you'd say if you respected other's rights to their "opinions." I wasn't the only one that you treated like that. You were abrasive to the others that disagreed with you. Your conduct on that thread contradicted your claims of respecting other people's rights to their "opinions."
JennaBanks: but you need to understand that they are NOT facts and are no more important than anyone else's.
First, your opinion of what constitutes fact and opinion doesn't match what reality says are facts and opinions.
Second, many of my statements were facts. I combined them with a reasoned, well thought out argument, to counter your opinion. When I replied to you, I summarized the facts from information sources that I've read.
Third, reducing my reasoned argument as nothing but an "opinion," reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It attempts to reduce it to something equivalent to, say, the opinion that tinfoil hats can protect your brain from government control.
The conservative side of the argument, on that thread, advanced the facts. They advanced reality. The opposition advanced nothing but rhetoric. Rhetoric that sounded familiar to the rhetoric from progressive media.
JennaBanks: Please get off of your high horse and back to reality....
Sorry, but I have no intentions of joining you in your fantasy world. Hate to bust your bubble, but that happy place with the flowers, unicorns and rainbow doesn't constitute reality.
Reality is where I'm at. It's where the conservatives on that thread are at. You're welcome to take a step into reality. There's a good chance that we'd agree with each other for a change.
