Media Endorsements of Presidential Candidates

[DeistPaladin]

Probably because Republicans are lying their asses off.

Another unsupported assertion.

Well, we had a discussion on that topic going here but I never got a response from you regarding lie #1 in the Ryan RNC speech.

The source of all this isn't Romney, it's the Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement of Romney.

Both the RNC and the endorsement quote-mined Obama. The quote-mine has been pointed out to them and they continue to peddle it. This makes them liars.

What he said was "If you've got a business – you didn't build that."

Yes, that's the quote mined part of what he said.

Quote mines are direct quotes, just edited to change the meaning.

The entire quote in context, which you quoted above, is clearly talking about roads and bridges.

I think you're better off arguing what he meant, but again, we don't agree on what he meant. I do think that what he said is what he meant.

I agree we disagree. I'm working with the entire quote in context. You are working with the quote-mined passage. The fact that the passage was quote-mined has been pointed out to you and yet you still insist on using that edited snippet.

Are you being willfully ignorant or dishonest?

Earlier I tried to get you or someone else to clarify what you think the term "trickle down" means, with no meaningful response on the subject. Romney isn't offering something he calls "trickle down" so I can't comment on it until you define what it is.

As far as I know, there aren't multiple ideas of what this term means. The theory of trickle down economics is that there's a direct inverse correlation between the tax rates on the richest segment of society and the economic activity they create in the form of job growth, economic expansion and even tax revenue. Taxing them more, according to the theory, causes the economy to contract as the "job creators" pull back from investing in the economy while taxing them less has the opposite effect.

This theory has been put to the test for the last 30 years and especially so in the last administration. Clinton raised taxes and enjoyed economic growth during the 90s while W Bush gave the rich the most generous of tax relief and saw the worst job growth since The Depression.

The Republicans have not abandoned Trickle Down as a result of its failure. Quite to the contrary.

[festive1]

Our unalienable rights in the US include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Romney's pursuit of happiness includes leaving a very large inheritance to his heirs, then it is his business, not anyone else's. I don't want to give up my rights in this area, and I don't want anyone else judging what is right for me. If we did I'm sure there would be lots of people with opinions on all sorts of things, like whether parents with three kids should be able to be completely comfortable and secure with, oh let me pick a number out of thin air here, two kids, and give the other kid to some couple who find themselves infertile. No thanks.

Yet, we've legislated that we can pursue life, liberty and happiness, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's same rights. I argue that hoarding one's wealth and keeping it in the family does a disservice to those receiving that inheritance. Also, let's pick on the Waltons this time (founding family of Wal*Mart, worth somewhere in the ballpark of $7 billion), how much better would the public school system of Arkansas be if Sam had left much of his fortune to the betterment of the public schools of his home state? And by extension, how many children and families would have benefited from this generosity?
How many kids one has is a very different matter than what one should do with one's wealth upon death. Progeny is not wealth, though some love their wealth (or pursuit thereof) more than their progeny. Once a person amasses a certain level of wealth, it's simply ridiculous, greedy, and inhuman to not help those less fortunate.

[Tino]

Yet, we've legislated that we can pursue life, liberty and happiness, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's same rights. I argue that hoarding one's wealth and keeping it in the family does a disservice to those receiving that inheritance.

About half the country would argue that abortions do a disservice to those receiving the abortion, both mother and child. But I support the right of abortion because I believe complex questions are ultimately up to the individual most effected. Likewise I would leave this question up to the inheritee and inheritor.

Also, let's pick on the Waltons this time (founding family of Wal*Mart, worth somewhere in the ballpark of $7 billion), how much better would the public school system of Arkansas be if Sam had left much of his fortune to the betterment of the public schools of his home state? And by extension, how many children and families would have benefited from this generosity?
How many kids one has is a very different matter than what one should do with one's wealth upon death. Progeny is not wealth, though some love their wealth (or pursuit thereof) more than their progeny. Once a person amasses a certain level of wealth, it's simply ridiculous, greedy, and inhuman to not help those less fortunate.

I believe in the right of ownership of wealth, whether that wealth is in the form of money, children, real estate, artwork, intellectual content, health or anything else that is valued. I don't agree that government should be able to look at a citizen and just decide you've got too much of something other people want, and take it away.

---

Are you being willfully ignorant or dishonest?

I've explained my reasoning already.

As far as I know, there aren't multiple ideas of what this term means. The theory of trickle down economics is that there's a direct inverse correlation between the tax rates on the richest segment of society and the economic activity they create in the form of job growth, economic expansion and even tax revenue. Taxing them more, according to the theory, causes the economy to contract as the "job creators" pull back from investing in the economy while taxing them less has the opposite effect.

I haven't seen anyone offer a plan that fits this simple description, and it would depend on the state of the economy.

I think there is widespread agreement that raising taxes during a weak economy will not increase revenues by more than it loses due to slower economic growth. To my recollection, even Obama agrees on that point.

If the economy is booming, which it was due to a one-time dot com boom during Clinton's term, raising tax rates will raise revenues due just to momentum. Lowering taxes would be unnecessary since other forces will limit growth (for example a very low unemployment rate).

Romney's focus is on jobs. His plan is to raise revenues by having more people with jobs (who can then pay taxes) and more people with higher-paying jobs who will pay more in taxes. More jobs will come from more favorable tax rates that encourage investment and hiring. As I described above, Romney keeps the high-incomers paying the same amount of taxes by eliminating deductions that don't relate to slowing the economy.

If your approach to understanding complex economic plans is simply to label them all as "trickle down" and discard them, you're going to continue to be confused about what is actually being proposed.

[festive1]

About half the country would argue that abortions do a disservice to those receiving the abortion, both mother and child. But I support the right of abortion because I believe complex questions are ultimately up to the individual most effected. Likewise I would leave this question up to the inheritee and inheritor.

Agreed on the abortion front. I've spent a good amount of time amongst privileged trust-fund babies. In my experience they are mainly comprised of self-important assholes, who think because daddy or granddaddy left me money I am better and more important than others. Bad parenting, for sure. But also unambitious. If socialism creates a class of people who don't want to better themselves because they live off the government. The ultimate form of capitalism has the same result, just substitute trust-fund for government, and it doesn't benefit most people.

I believe in the right of ownership of wealth, whether that wealth is in the form of money, children, real estate, artwork, intellectual content, health or anything else that is valued. I don't agree that government should be able to look at a citizen and just decide you've got too much of something other people want, and take it away.

Children and health, amongst these items that you listed, are not owned and therefore cannot be held. I have kids, it doesn't mean I own them or can even control something as simple as their behavior at the supermarket. All I can do is guide, reward good behavior, punish bad behavior, and hope for the best. Same with health. Even healthy adults die suddenly from natural causes. It's not a commodity. And when it's your time to go, no amount of advanced medicine can save you.
As for the other items on your list, yes, the concept of ownership does apply. But ownership should not be in perpetuity. The amount of wealth a few people have amassed is obscene. It's not helping anyone just sitting in a bank vault, spread it around. There's only this one life, why not make it better for everyone? The wealthy would still be well-off in comparison to the masses, I doubt they would even miss it.

[Tino]

Well, we had a discussion on that topic going here but I never got a response from you regarding lie #1 in the Ryan RNC speech.

I just posted a response. I did not previously see that you had responded to my request, nearly a month ago. I've pointed out elsewhere that the "New Posts" misses a lot, which I think is why I missed it.

[DeistPaladin]

I've explained my reasoning already.

No, you haven't. You've said that you interpret Obama's quote mined speech the way the Romney campaign has presented it even though you are fully aware of the full quote in context. Your explanation is little better than a statement of faith.

Here is the quote again, as it comes from your own post:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

That you know the full context and still read it the way the Romney campaign wants you to with their quote mined presentation makes me ask if you're being dishonest or willfully ignorant.

I haven't seen anyone offer a plan that fits this simple description, and it would depend on the state of the economy.

This has been Republican economic policy since Reagan. And I should know because I used to believe it. I was once a conservative Republican and then later a Libertarian Republican.

In retrospect, how foolish. Businesses don't hire people or expand simply because they have more money to work with. They do so because they see potential for a return on investment. This is why the windfall the upper 1% have received from the Bush tax cuts resulted in greater income inequity in America but did not spur economic growth.

I think there is widespread agreement that raising taxes during a weak economy will not increase revenues by more than it loses due to slower economic growth.

And here we go. Increasing taxes on the rich = slower economic growth. Thank you. It's been proven untrue but there you go.

[Tino]

No, you haven't. You've said that you interpret Obama's quote mined speech the way the Romney campaign has presented it even though you are fully aware of the full quote in context. Your explanation is little better than a statement of faith.

My interpretation of what he said was my own, not Romney's. When the President said "If you've got a business – you didn't build that", I asked myself if he really meant this the way it sounds and concluded that he did. If he meant it the way you think, there would be no need to preface the line with "If you've got a business".

In retrospect, how foolish. Businesses don't hire people or expand simply because they have more money to work with. They do so because they see potential for a return on investment.

Businesses can't expand or hire if they don't have more money to work with. Just having the money won't be the reason to expand - it will also require a reason to think that the investment will pay off. But it's not going to happen if the money isn't there. As a small business owner myself, and a member of a local small business association where I meet weekly with other small business owners, I know that having money to expand is what leads most business owners to do it. They always believe that there's more business to be had by growing - they're small businesses - they're not dominating a market. If the funds are there, they will use them to grow, expand and hire, just like I'm doing right now with my own business.

I think there is widespread agreement that raising taxes during a weak economy will not increase revenues by more than it loses due to slower economic growth.

And here we go. Increasing taxes on the rich = slower economic growth. Thank you. It's been proven untrue but there you go.

I've seen no credible sources who agree with your position on this. Raising taxes during a weak economy just slows things down more.

[cratehorus]

I've seen no credible sources who agree with your position on this.

that's because anyone that disagrees with you is no longer credible

[Tino]

I've seen no credible sources who agree with your position on this.

that's because anyone that disagrees with you is no longer credible

Typical asshat answer. If you had any credibility you'd cite a source. Go back in your sandbox with the other kiddies.

[cratehorus]

that's because anyone that disagrees with you is no longer credible

Typical asshat answer. If you had any credibility you'd cite a source. Go back in your sandbox with the other kiddies.

why? your opinion won't change no matter how "credible" the source is? you've shown that repeatedly