|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
As a % of the Federal budget it is less than at other times in US history. |
Sooooo, what does that tell us? It tells us fully nothing, actually. I actually think it to be 100% wrong too.
The real figure is debt as a % of net GDP, or, % of GDP growth, or % per head.
The federal budget is only a measure of what the government expects to spend. The deficit is the difference between what they expect to spend and what they spend as what they expect to spend should mirror the taxes they steal from citizens. The debt is the total value, plus interest, of all deficits.
Governmental debt is an inability to balance expenditures and revenue.
But during the Clinton years, debt as a % of GDP decreased due to the quickly growing American economy and Willie's ability to keep budgets balanced. |
Sure I agree but the deficit needs to be put into context. and what is the cause of the deficit?
Bush's tax cuts probably some. Though as I said many smart people make strong arguments that tax cuts increase productivity.
but the real causes of the deficit were the stock market meltdown , the recession and the 9-11 attacks.
and the high price of oil has been a drain on the US economy.
You can't blame Bush for higher oil demand by China and India. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
[
You've developed a bit of a fetish for wandering onto my threads and trying to turn them into threads about me. It's kind of icky. |
I just asked you to define a term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
As a % of the Federal budget it is less than at other times in US history. |
Sooooo, what does that tell us? It tells us fully nothing, actually. I actually think it to be 100% wrong too.
The real figure is debt as a % of net GDP, or, % of GDP growth, or % per head.
The federal budget is only a measure of what the government expects to spend. The deficit is the difference between what they expect to spend and what they spend as what they expect to spend should mirror the taxes they steal from citizens. The debt is the total value, plus interest, of all deficits.
Governmental debt is an inability to balance expenditures and revenue.
But during the Clinton years, debt as a % of GDP decreased due to the quickly growing American economy and Willie's ability to keep budgets balanced. |
I happen to think there is a big difference between EFL Trainer and Deubel. Deubel has many cogent points, though I sometimes disagree with him as he is to the Left of me, I believe. Deubel is very educated and sober in his thinking even if you disagree with him. Many posters respect Deubel and wouldn't lump him with EFL. Anyway, there are some on the right on this board that rant just like EFL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
As a % of the Federal budget it is less than at other times in US history. |
Sooooo, what does that tell us? It tells us fully nothing, actually. I actually think it to be 100% wrong too.
The real figure is debt as a % of net GDP, or, % of GDP growth, or % per head.
The federal budget is only a measure of what the government expects to spend. The deficit is the difference between what they expect to spend and what they spend as what they expect to spend should mirror the taxes they steal from citizens. The debt is the total value, plus interest, of all deficits.
Governmental debt is an inability to balance expenditures and revenue.
But during the Clinton years, debt as a % of GDP decreased due to the quickly growing American economy and Willie's ability to keep budgets balanced. |
I happen to think there is a big difference between EFL Trainer and Deubel. Deubel has many cogent points, though I sometimes disagree with him as he is to the Left of me, I believe. Deubel is very educated and sober in his thinking even if you disagree with him. Many posters respect Deubel and wouldn't lump him with EFL. Anyway, there are some on the right on this board that rant just like EFL. |
Huh?
I think you quoted the wrong quote of mine. EFL is super duper uber angry and dd is beyond pretentious. Both are annoying, especially given that I actually agree with them from time to time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
As a % of the Federal budget it is less than at other times in US history. |
Sooooo, what does that tell us? It tells us fully nothing, actually. I actually think it to be 100% wrong too.
The real figure is debt as a % of net GDP, or, % of GDP growth, or % per head.
The federal budget is only a measure of what the government expects to spend. The deficit is the difference between what they expect to spend and what they spend as what they expect to spend should mirror the taxes they steal from citizens. The debt is the total value, plus interest, of all deficits.
Governmental debt is an inability to balance expenditures and revenue.
But during the Clinton years, debt as a % of GDP decreased due to the quickly growing American economy and Willie's ability to keep budgets balanced. |
I happen to think there is a big difference between EFL Trainer and Deubel. Deubel has many cogent points, though I sometimes disagree with him as he is to the Left of me, I believe. Deubel is very educated and sober in his thinking even if you disagree with him. Many posters respect Deubel and wouldn't lump him with EFL. Anyway, there are some on the right on this board that rant just like EFL. |
Huh?
I think you quoted the wrong quote of mine. EFL is super duper uber angry and dd is beyond pretentious. Both are annoying, especially given that I actually agree with them from time to time. |
Really? And you've met me? Good example of great logic. You see posts on-line and think you know me? Again, thanks for showing us your utter competence.
this is exactly the type of hypocrisy I post about. You insult others regularly. Myself, in particular. But you think to dismiss me as an angry and ranting when the substance of my posts is anything but. They are all reasoned thoroughly. What can you say against my stands on any issue that is not logical, not researched? Nothing. This shows the serious lack of depth to your rhetoric: you don't like me, so you dismiss me.
And you talk of ranting?
Deal with my arguments, then we'll talk.
Good luck with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Anyway, there are some on the right on this board that rant just like EFL. |
Please define rant. Then show any weakness in any argument I have proffered. You, like th others who whine about me, cannot. That is exactly why you whine.
I call you all what you are and you respond with attacking the messenger because you have no argument against my logic.
Go ahead: tear apart any of my stances on any subject.
You can't do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only thing Iacocca ever managed was the extortion of the US tax payer via the Chrysler bailout. The largest case of corporate welfare ever in the US.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The only thing Iacocca ever managed was... |
Yes, yes, yes. But you miss this thread's point: Iacocca has defied W. Bush. In BLT's eyes, this is noteworthy and remarkable.
For one it makes Iacocca "a brilliant man" and "a great leader." For another it means that BLT must not be a wild-eyed radical after all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Anyway, there are some on the right on this board that rant just like EFL. |
Please define rant. |
Well, when people challenge you for data or actually disagree with you, you immediately haul out insults.
Look at Joo Rip or however you spell his name. I also asked him for data to support his position. Did he start raging that I was a punk? Nooooo. He went out and provided the data.
I'm sure you're a very nice person in real life. I keep saying Dave's is an intellectual locker room where we slap each other with wet towels. I can be entirely nasty on Dave's in a way I'm not in real life. Some people certainly take it far, like the case of Shawner where, if you're to believe Otis, they started stalking him and his GF. When you click off Dave's, if you're still trying to fight battles, then I think there is something wrong with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
The only thing Iacocca ever managed was the extortion of the US tax payer via the Chrysler bailout. The largest case of corporate welfare ever in the US.
cbc |
Actually, I agree with this. Or I did. When he pulled off the turn around with Chrysler, and well ahead of schedule, it was impressive.
However, the question is: can he be defined as a raving lunatic? Neo-cons on this board regularly describe the sort of rhetoric found in the excerpt as being the ravings of lunatics.
Why not so when it is Iacocca?
I think my point has been made: people are talking out their partisan asses on this board and spend most of their time denigrating the poster because they cannot denigrate the argument itself.
Faced with the same rhetoric from someone they can't assail as a nut - though stevo-the-troll went with ageism  - they simply don't respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| it means that BLT must not be a wild-eyed radical after all... |
Rather, it just shows the bullshit and hypocrisy you fools engage in. See my post above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Well, when people challenge you for data or actually disagree with you, you immediately haul out insults. |
This is a false statement. You have, on a number of occasions, tried to imply under the cover of a legitimate question, that something stated was suspect. You did it on this thread. You are not being intellectually honest. When you ask a pointed question while claiming innocence, you make yourself look dishonest... because you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Well, when people challenge you for data or actually disagree with you, you immediately haul out insults. |
This is a false statement. You have, on a number of occasions, tried to imply under the cover of a legitimate question, that something stated was suspect. You did it on this thread. You are not being intellectually honest. When you ask a pointed question while claiming innocence, you make yourself look dishonest... because you are. |
Mindmetoo is right. Time and again, you've been called upon to back up your words with data, and instead you go on about how someone is stupid, etc. It would be one thing if you called someone names and also provided data. It would be another thing if you neither provided the data nor called someone names.
Adventurer is right. DDeubel has the potential to be a worthy opponent (he falls into the providing-data-then-calling-names category). You're just a waste of bandwith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Well, when people challenge you for data or actually disagree with you, you immediately haul out insults. |
This is a false statement. You have, on a number of occasions, tried to imply under the cover of a legitimate question, that something stated was suspect. You did it on this thread. You are not being intellectually honest. When you ask a pointed question while claiming innocence, you make yourself look dishonest... because you are. |
Mindmetoo is right. Time and again, you've been called upon to back up your words with data, and instead you go on about how someone is stupid, etc. It would be one thing if you called someone names and also provided data. It would be another thing if you neither provided the data nor called someone names.
Adventurer is right. DDeubel has the potential to be a worthy opponent (he falls into the providing-data-then-calling-names category). You're just a waste of bandwith. |
bull. There have been all of two times, and in BOTH cases the info was already on this site. In at least one of the two the poster in question was arguing a case without having even basic background knowledge. It was incumbent upon that person to get educated before running their mouth.
Nice lie.
The fact is, all of you complaining cannot argue worth a damn. You let your little egos impinge your rational thought. You see "idiot" and lose all focus. You are weak. It is an indictment of the state of rhetoric in this day and age.
In fact, I have posted that I intentionally started posting harshly to fight the neo-con bullshit machine that descends on every post from a decent human being on this board. Trolls like steve, gopher, etc., insult people with virtually every post, yet you say little or nothing. You are WEAK.
I am posting in this style to bring to your attention how weak you are. Until you can control yourself well enough to not lose your reason when confronted with a difficult style/lies/bullshit, you've really got no business engaging. All have to do is use one epithet and all of you lose it. WEAK.
Yet, when real dishonest discourse is presented you, you accept it. If someone uses four-syllable words to insult you, you accept it. This is WEAK.
Yet, when OTTH tries to derail a thread, or misdirect, you accept it. WEAK. This thread, for example, was about one thing: it is a challenge to the bullshit artists to explain how they can dismiss valid rhetoric based solely on who is presenting it. That is the only topic. When OTTH attempted to change the topic, I called him on his bullshit. You? You accepted it. WEAK.
Buck up, boys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
bull. There have been all of two times, and in BOTH cases the info was already on this site. In at least one of the two the poster in question was arguing a case without having even basic background knowledge. It was incumbent upon that person to get educated before running their mouth.
Nice lie.
The fact is, all of you complaining cannot argue worth a damn. You let your little egos impinge your rational thought. You see "idiot" and lose all focus. You are weak. It is an indictment of the state of rhetoric in this day and age.
|
EFL the only one convinced by this is you. Don't you think it funny that at least three people who side with your politics have taken special special care to distance themselves from you?
Who disagrees with this statement: The greatest act of stupidity in EFL's eyes is to disagree with him or simply question him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
