 | | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Depends on what perfect is. Could be 2x perfect (if perfect=0) Tim (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) That would be nice if it were true, but despite two administrations espousing that view, it has yet to work as promised. It fails for a number of reasons. First, you can't build a business if there isn't a demand to support it, and if the (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) "Half-wit" I'd say, but that would be too easy! >:-D (...) Well, my point is that it has been consistently used through the decades and therefore is a sort of standardized snapshot of our economy, if only one part. Though it doesn't reflect (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Whoops! Not a failing of math, but of reading comprehension. I totally blew past your maximum of five and read a ten in its place. But half-perfect is nifty, too! (...) But it's accurate only inasmuch as an IQ test accurately measures IQ. (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Thanks, Samarth. (...) It is out of context in the strict sense of the term. The same could be said of any of the illustrated passages from Jesus's Teachings, but the same must also be said of anyone else's quoting of Jesus's teachings, (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
--snip-- (...) But that's true in any developed country at any time since WWII. The standard of living of the developed world has increased consistently (albeit faster or slower at times) because science and technology has allowed it to. It's a true (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) How's that math working for you lately, Dave!? Looks like half of perfect from here the obstructed-view seats.... (...) Well, that certainly was easy....:-) (...) But it is the metric by which we have consistently gauged the economy. I realize (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) Hey, I'll take that. That's 25% of perfect, after all. (...) That's right--it's a disastrous policy divorced from reality and favored only by the very wealthy who understand its implications and the not-so-wealthy who don't. End of debate! (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) I give your weak attempt at humor a 2.5 out of 5 (whoopie-cushions). As for the study, I was under the impression that the whole debate WRT supply-side economics was all but over. It worked fabulously for Reagan (spending did him in). It is (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) All things considered, I'm more annoyed that you didn't riff on my rating system than that you questioned the methodology of the study! Dave! (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
(...) While I suspect the conclusions of the study are correct it seems like a highly flawed study from that write-up. For one thing calling Australia a low tax country is a little odd considering that the top rate was about 50% until very recently. (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
|
Read about it (URL) in Scientific American. It's been clear since at least the time of Reagan's disastrous administration that this reward-the-wealthy approach wasn't the societal boon that it was advertised to be, but now we have scientific (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
|
Isn't this a problem with newsreaders not having the correct functionality? Surely following a thread wherever it goes should be a basic feature of a newsreader and its a bit lacking if it doesn't? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- Me too. Tim (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
|
(...) That is great, except in some cases such as .announce.moc, which doesn't allow replies, so you are forced to set followups if you post there. (...) That is true, otherwise people trying to follow the thread on a newsreader will probably not (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trouble with IE, PNG and BS
|
|
(...) I just realised something which is that if you are changing the followup-to you should mark it at the bottom of the message (as I have just done). That is something Didier should have done. (...) I'm not sure how he is meant to know where (...) (18 years ago, 16-Oct-06, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions for the Conservatives and/or Republicans out there
|
|
(...) Of course, such indictments would ideally be brought by the justice department, hand-picked by Bush. Additionally, no Congressional investigations can occur (at least, not ones with subpoena power) without the blessing of the majority party. (...) (18 years ago, 13-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions for the Conservatives and/or Republicans out there
|
|
(...) Well, what I meant to say was: if there is such conclusive evidence out there, then where are the indictments? I know that there is a lot of speculative evidence, but nothing that would hold up in a court of law. You, of all people, have (...) (18 years ago, 13-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions for the Conservatives and/or Republicans out there
|
|
(...) John, are looking for evidence that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen (and for which abundant evidence exists)? Or are you looking for evidence of subsequent lies, distortions, and exaggerations by the Bush administration (for which (...) (18 years ago, 13-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions for the Conservatives and/or Republicans out there
|
|
(...) No Botox needed. Listen, Tom, if anyone produces concrete evidence ie facts and not just partisan conspiracy theories, than I am "all in". Instead, it seems that it's too easy for the left to just speculate from the hip and shoot away in a (...) (18 years ago, 13-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
