I got onto a debate on Avenue-X in 2008.
I didn't get a chance to complete the debate, as my account got locked and deleted. What I said in the posts below is very similar to what I would've said back then. I generated some of the below replies back then. I didn't get them on the thread in time.
The others? This is the only debate thread where I created new replies. The other debates that I saved on here are based on replies I generated when I was active on those debates.
There are slight differences, but they're trivial.
For instance, I would've said that the Republicans would fight to keep the Bush tax cuts. Since time passed, I could say that the Republicans successfully fought to keep the Bush tax cuts.
My argument, and stance, has remained consistent over my online debating run. This run began in 2003. Additional experience and research supported my stance.
The moderators locking me out again protected the opposition from my replies.
That lockout didn't help the opposition in the long run. Two replied to me despite my not being able to log back on. Because of that fact, I've gone further with this series. I took the liberty to counter every post that one poster made in that thread.
People need to realize something when they debate with me. It's better to bow out of the fight when I jump in. One main prerequisite for me to debate is that I know far more than the opposition.
If "mechanics" prevents me from replying to them, they shouldn't reply to me. They shouldn't get someone to set obstacles for me. They shouldn't fan the flames among the opposition to keep them fighting. If they successfully set obstacles to my replying to them, they'll only delay their defeat. It also drives me to "hit" them harder when I do get back.
The rebates that we debated did slow the rate of economic slowdown. That's one of the things that I argued. It may have prevented our psychology from driving us into panic mode... something that could've caused something worse.
Had that happened, we could've been in a depression as of 2011.
The rebates put a small dent in the economy. It contributed for the one "above the line" growth rate before the real recession began.
I don't buy the arbitrary decision, by a bunch of liberal academic professors, that the recession started earlier. They lost their credibility with me in 1992. They withheld their "recession ended" announcement back then to increase the headwinds against the First Bush' re-election bid.
They had an agenda for using their recession start date.
Now, why did the rebates not have a better impact?
The rebates didn't benefit the economic engine. They didn't go out to the rich and super rich.
What's the progressives plan to jumpstart the economy? Give money to the "consumers." In their minds, that's the majority of the American public, who happen to either be Middle Class or Poor.
They argue that it's those people, the consumers, who create jobs and get the economy going.
What they don't realize is that the rich and super rich are responsible for a large segment of consumer spending. They also don't realize that the government is also responsible for a large segment of consumer spending.
Out of the three main contributors to consumer spending, the rich and super-rich are the ones that make a real, sustained, difference.
The Democrats controlled congress in 2008. Whether the rebates became reality or not depended on the Democrat Congress. Nowhere in that thread did the liberals criticize the Democrats.
I didn't get a chance to complete the debate, as my account got locked and deleted. What I said in the posts below is very similar to what I would've said back then. I generated some of the below replies back then. I didn't get them on the thread in time.
The others? This is the only debate thread where I created new replies. The other debates that I saved on here are based on replies I generated when I was active on those debates.
There are slight differences, but they're trivial.
For instance, I would've said that the Republicans would fight to keep the Bush tax cuts. Since time passed, I could say that the Republicans successfully fought to keep the Bush tax cuts.
My argument, and stance, has remained consistent over my online debating run. This run began in 2003. Additional experience and research supported my stance.
The moderators locking me out again protected the opposition from my replies.
That lockout didn't help the opposition in the long run. Two replied to me despite my not being able to log back on. Because of that fact, I've gone further with this series. I took the liberty to counter every post that one poster made in that thread.
People need to realize something when they debate with me. It's better to bow out of the fight when I jump in. One main prerequisite for me to debate is that I know far more than the opposition.
If "mechanics" prevents me from replying to them, they shouldn't reply to me. They shouldn't get someone to set obstacles for me. They shouldn't fan the flames among the opposition to keep them fighting. If they successfully set obstacles to my replying to them, they'll only delay their defeat. It also drives me to "hit" them harder when I do get back.
The rebates that we debated did slow the rate of economic slowdown. That's one of the things that I argued. It may have prevented our psychology from driving us into panic mode... something that could've caused something worse.
Had that happened, we could've been in a depression as of 2011.
The rebates put a small dent in the economy. It contributed for the one "above the line" growth rate before the real recession began.
I don't buy the arbitrary decision, by a bunch of liberal academic professors, that the recession started earlier. They lost their credibility with me in 1992. They withheld their "recession ended" announcement back then to increase the headwinds against the First Bush' re-election bid.
They had an agenda for using their recession start date.
Now, why did the rebates not have a better impact?
The rebates didn't benefit the economic engine. They didn't go out to the rich and super rich.
What's the progressives plan to jumpstart the economy? Give money to the "consumers." In their minds, that's the majority of the American public, who happen to either be Middle Class or Poor.
They argue that it's those people, the consumers, who create jobs and get the economy going.
What they don't realize is that the rich and super rich are responsible for a large segment of consumer spending. They also don't realize that the government is also responsible for a large segment of consumer spending.
Out of the three main contributors to consumer spending, the rich and super-rich are the ones that make a real, sustained, difference.
The Democrats controlled congress in 2008. Whether the rebates became reality or not depended on the Democrat Congress. Nowhere in that thread did the liberals criticize the Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment