Liar, liar, pants on fire
Moderators: MorGrendel, hypo
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Liar, liar, pants on fire
Primaries.. When candidates say whatever the heck they want to get their numbers up, even if it is not true.. Here are a few recent ones..
Bachmann:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... oved-she-/
Romney:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... g-were-in/
Ron Paul:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -bankrupt/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... increases/
----------------
Here's a true one though. Perhaps not all candidates are liars after all (yey flat tax!):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... h-governo/
Bachmann:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... oved-she-/
Romney:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... g-were-in/
Ron Paul:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -bankrupt/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... increases/
----------------
Here's a true one though. Perhaps not all candidates are liars after all (yey flat tax!):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... h-governo/
My love for you is like a truck..
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
In regards to th RP "quotes":
The analogy they used for defining "not bankrupt" is faulty. Politifact's allegory refers to someone whose paycheck is not large enough to pay his/her bills, but due to their high credit rating cAn put the excess expense on credit(cards) and has the ability to then pay off that credit card bill. This is not realistic. If you can't keep up with daily expenses, then you can't afford to pay compounding interest. The only way to make this scenario work, is to introduce income from an undisclosed source, I.e. Something other than work, like stealing. Which is what the fed bank does every time it prints money. So RP's "bankrupt" may be hyperbole and by definition alone false, it is only so because the monitary system to which it relates is unrealistic and floats upon the stolen earnings of of it's citizenry.
The second is rethoric, dems vs reps. At least the ad cites it's sources. Never believe ALL or NOTHING statements, or why you hear on tv. That said, the article doesnt seem to say dems are against tax hikes, just thAt reps will go along with dem plans if they get what they want. The article also gives the deems credit for cuts, which is fine, but a republican canidate is not going to praise the other side in their ad. That would be a waste of an ad and likely cost you a election.
The analogy they used for defining "not bankrupt" is faulty. Politifact's allegory refers to someone whose paycheck is not large enough to pay his/her bills, but due to their high credit rating cAn put the excess expense on credit(cards) and has the ability to then pay off that credit card bill. This is not realistic. If you can't keep up with daily expenses, then you can't afford to pay compounding interest. The only way to make this scenario work, is to introduce income from an undisclosed source, I.e. Something other than work, like stealing. Which is what the fed bank does every time it prints money. So RP's "bankrupt" may be hyperbole and by definition alone false, it is only so because the monitary system to which it relates is unrealistic and floats upon the stolen earnings of of it's citizenry.
The second is rethoric, dems vs reps. At least the ad cites it's sources. Never believe ALL or NOTHING statements, or why you hear on tv. That said, the article doesnt seem to say dems are against tax hikes, just thAt reps will go along with dem plans if they get what they want. The article also gives the deems credit for cuts, which is fine, but a republican canidate is not going to praise the other side in their ad. That would be a waste of an ad and likely cost you a election.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
I understand where you are coming from, and I'm not disputing that we are in a bad place, and drastic measures need to be done. But nontheless, you are not bankrupt until you are. Just because you only pay your interest, does not make you bankrupt in the least. Only when you stop being able to pay your interest do you become bankrupt. Perhaps you are alluding to the point of no return, where you simply can't generate anough money to be able to ever pay your debt and you are stuck only paying interest for the rest of your life. That is indeed a scary scenario, but we are simply not there. If we were there, then I would allow the statement wholehartedly.
However, US is still very capable of paying their interest. In fact, US is very capable of paying more then their interest should we choose to. And we have lots of ways to generate income. As such, we are not bankrupt, and saying that we are is only meant for political gain.
Let's talk more about the new income. I agree that we do need new income to pay our debt. But new income does not necessarily mean stealing from the citizens as you say. In the context of the US, if we are able to grow the economy (e.g. create jobs), that directly generates new income! In fact, that's probably the best way to generate income. Or if we get out of a couple of wars we're in, that means freeing up cash to pay for other things such as the debt. Or if we are able to close some of the tax loopholes that allow so much wasted taxes, that directly means new income. Or even as simple as simplifying the tax code by going towards a lower flat tax so everyone knows what they need to pay and they actually pay it (no more of the 4.5% tax from Boeing. Weren't they supposed to pay 35%?).
And yes, new taxes are also new income, however unpopular they may be. In fact, next year, there are a bunch of tax cuts slated to expire. That will be new income if they expire. I'm not just talking about Bush tax cuts, but also about others like the social security tax cuts that most people don't even realize they are getting (when was the last time you thanked Obama for all the tax cuts he gave?)
My point is, provided that congress can get together and actually get along (which is a long shot, i know), there are many avenues the country can take to pay their debt down, from cutting spending (which seems to have started), both domestic and defense, to spurring economic growth, to cutting tax loopholes (and maybe if we get lucky getting a flat tax), and yes to even raising taxes (simply by letting some tax cuts expire).
As such, I disagree with the statement that our country is backrupt and I stand by my position that it is a political soundbyte.
However, US is still very capable of paying their interest. In fact, US is very capable of paying more then their interest should we choose to. And we have lots of ways to generate income. As such, we are not bankrupt, and saying that we are is only meant for political gain.
Let's talk more about the new income. I agree that we do need new income to pay our debt. But new income does not necessarily mean stealing from the citizens as you say. In the context of the US, if we are able to grow the economy (e.g. create jobs), that directly generates new income! In fact, that's probably the best way to generate income. Or if we get out of a couple of wars we're in, that means freeing up cash to pay for other things such as the debt. Or if we are able to close some of the tax loopholes that allow so much wasted taxes, that directly means new income. Or even as simple as simplifying the tax code by going towards a lower flat tax so everyone knows what they need to pay and they actually pay it (no more of the 4.5% tax from Boeing. Weren't they supposed to pay 35%?).
And yes, new taxes are also new income, however unpopular they may be. In fact, next year, there are a bunch of tax cuts slated to expire. That will be new income if they expire. I'm not just talking about Bush tax cuts, but also about others like the social security tax cuts that most people don't even realize they are getting (when was the last time you thanked Obama for all the tax cuts he gave?)
My point is, provided that congress can get together and actually get along (which is a long shot, i know), there are many avenues the country can take to pay their debt down, from cutting spending (which seems to have started), both domestic and defense, to spurring economic growth, to cutting tax loopholes (and maybe if we get lucky getting a flat tax), and yes to even raising taxes (simply by letting some tax cuts expire).
As such, I disagree with the statement that our country is backrupt and I stand by my position that it is a political soundbyte.
My love for you is like a truck..
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
As always your response is well written. However, my beef is with politifact, which states RP is false (and you calling him a liar by extention).
Now that I can copy paste, here is the anology Politifact used:
Bankrupt now, Bankrupt later. The bitter pill is hard to swallow. No one knows the exact date Rome fell, but we can spot the moments it began to collapse throught the filter of time. In a 24-hour news cycle, the collapse is not today, but in the perview of history it could be.
It is a poorly thought out article and I do not trust it in its entirety.
Now that I can copy paste, here is the anology Politifact used:
I think they are crushed by thier own arguement. If your paycheck doesn't cover your bills every month, you are impoverished. And though you might not be ruined yet, it is not an if it is a when. My bills include my mortage, which is a substantial debt. If I put that debt on my credit card, the bank is happy, but the debt is not paid. Instead my debt continues to grow, until I am crushed in an avalance. I think an anology that alludes to not being to pay your bills EXCEPT your credit card bill is assinine and ethically (if not literaly) bankrupt.Now, about that second definition, "reduced to a state of financial ruin: impoverished."
Allow us an analogy: Your paycheck doesn't cover your bills every month. But you have a great credit score, use your credit card to cover the difference, and have no trouble paying your credit card bill. Would you describe yourself as "bankrupt" or "impoverished"?
We wouldn't. We'd reserve that description for the neighbor who was behind on his mortgage and couldn't pay his creditors.
Bankrupt now, Bankrupt later. The bitter pill is hard to swallow. No one knows the exact date Rome fell, but we can spot the moments it began to collapse throught the filter of time. In a 24-hour news cycle, the collapse is not today, but in the perview of history it could be.
It is a poorly thought out article and I do not trust it in its entirety.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
No, what I mean is that when the Fed Bank prints money out of thin air to pay its bills and maintain its good credit rating, it devalues my hard earned money. The Fed Bank inflates the value of America, by stealing value from me.But new income does not necessarily mean stealing from the citizens as you say.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
Ok, I see now your point and I understand why you feel the analogy used by politifact is bad. I agree. I will concede on that point.
I still remain conviced however that the phrase "The country's bankrupt" is not true for the reasons aformentioned in my previous post.
I still remain conviced however that the phrase "The country's bankrupt" is not true for the reasons aformentioned in my previous post.
My love for you is like a truck..
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
:) Then you describe our finacial system in one word, and you can't say Keynesian.
And for the haters, keynesian has nothing to do with Obama's Dad. (At least so far as I know)
And for the haters, keynesian has nothing to do with Obama's Dad. (At least so far as I know)
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
Bankrupt!
- Lawyered.
- Lawyered.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
I don't follow your logic... I already pointed out many reasons why the US is NOT bankrupt..
I simply agreed that the analogy used by politifact is not good. But that in no way dimishes my argument and in no way makes Ron's statement true.
Let me then look a little more into your analogy.
In your analogy, that impoverished person coasts, by paying their interest until they get to the point of no return where they can't pay their debt or interest and go bankrupt. That may be realisting for you or me because we don't get promotions often and we have very limited ways to increase our revenue (although we also could possibly cut our costs so we're not that bad off either).
However, as I mentioned in my previous post there are a host of ways that the US can increase revenue and cut costs to be able to get the debt under control.
As such, the US is not bankrupt and the cake is a lie ;)
I simply agreed that the analogy used by politifact is not good. But that in no way dimishes my argument and in no way makes Ron's statement true.
Let me then look a little more into your analogy.
Your biggest flaw in this argument is that you assume that the US cannot raise revenue or cut costs!I think they are crushed by thier own arguement. If your paycheck doesn't cover your bills every month, you are impoverished. And though you might not be ruined yet, it is not an if it is a when. My bills include my mortage, which is a substantial debt. If I put that debt on my credit card, the bank is happy, but the debt is not paid. Instead my debt continues to grow, until I am crushed in an avalance. I think an anology that alludes to not being to pay your bills EXCEPT your credit card bill is assinine and ethically (if not literaly) bankrupt.
In your analogy, that impoverished person coasts, by paying their interest until they get to the point of no return where they can't pay their debt or interest and go bankrupt. That may be realisting for you or me because we don't get promotions often and we have very limited ways to increase our revenue (although we also could possibly cut our costs so we're not that bad off either).
However, as I mentioned in my previous post there are a host of ways that the US can increase revenue and cut costs to be able to get the debt under control.
As such, the US is not bankrupt and the cake is a lie ;)
My love for you is like a truck..
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
OK, but by that philosophy the government can continue to raise revenue by what ever means necessary, including raising taxes. Some people are opposed to raising taxes and do not see the govt cutting cost in any meaningful way, and as such see no immediate way inwhich to balance the budget. Since the deficit continues to grow year after year, one can surmise we are unable to pay our bills. By politifact analogy, impoverished = bankrupt.
Hard to type on iPhone, I hope I made sense.
Hard to type on iPhone, I hope I made sense.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
I have already conceded that the polifact analogy was not good and shouldn't be used to attack Ron's statement. Bringing it back to support your argument is not relevant as I am not using it to back my argument that what Ron said is not true, and you are arguing with me now, not with politifact.
As for what some people think about taxes and cuts and what will happen, that's also not relevant. I could say the direct opposite of what you said. I could say that some people are FOR raising taxes and DO see the gov't cutting costs in meaningul ways, and as such they see an immediate way to balance the budget. Does that make my argument any more true?
All that matters is what the congress will do, or won't do. There are plenty of things they can do, and depending on what they choose to do will change the course of this country. Now, just the mere fact that they CAN do something means we're not bankrupt. Otherwise, if we're merely coasting to our doom with no chance of success, then we should think about learning Chinese.
As for what some people think about taxes and cuts and what will happen, that's also not relevant. I could say the direct opposite of what you said. I could say that some people are FOR raising taxes and DO see the gov't cutting costs in meaningul ways, and as such they see an immediate way to balance the budget. Does that make my argument any more true?
All that matters is what the congress will do, or won't do. There are plenty of things they can do, and depending on what they choose to do will change the course of this country. Now, just the mere fact that they CAN do something means we're not bankrupt. Otherwise, if we're merely coasting to our doom with no chance of success, then we should think about learning Chinese.
My love for you is like a truck..
- MorGrendel
- Warlord
- Posts: 5175
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
I cannot argue your points as they are valid rational assessments. We are caught is a dog fight over semantics. You feel the word bankrupt is an overestimate, whereas I feel it is appropriate given our colossal debt componded by our true unemployment rate. Can we turn it around? Sure, good people go bankruPt all the time an they work their butts off never to have it happen again. But it's not without sacrifice, and I don't see the govt sacrificing. Is sacrifice to strong a word. Maybe. But sometimes you need to use strong language to wake up the apathetic.
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
- Berserker
- Galatian Citizen
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: Hanover, MD
- Contact:
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
Very well put. Indeed, strong language is sometimes necessary to wake the apathetic. Perhaps the recent downgrade will wake congress up as well. We'll find out in a little over a month!
T - 44 days till new budget showdown!
T - 44 days till new budget showdown!
My love for you is like a truck..
-
- Galatian
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:54 am
Re: Liar, liar, pants on fire
Good Day, Jeff and Serban.
Love the conversation!
Wish I had the time to add my two cents which is about the worth of the dollar now.
Sincerely
Thomas
Love the conversation!
Wish I had the time to add my two cents which is about the worth of the dollar now.
Sincerely
Thomas