So Kansas, how's the trickle tasting?

[BuckSparkles]

Its amazing that you know the exact nationalities of everyone here. Its also amazing that people post news stories on a forum thats international and expect only those of a particular nation to comment on a particular nation's news.

Who cares if it is international?

What happens in Kansas doesn't even affect a typical EU user in any shape way or form. Why should they care?

[Machismo]

I pointed out whats wrong with it. You just assumed my narrative is about "impossible". You make a lot of assumptions. You know what they say, they make an... you know the rest.

No, it wasn't wrong. I never said those things are easy. If I had, THEN I would have been wrong. Since I did not say thoso things, and you even confirmed that they are indeed possible, then I was not wrong, was I?

Shall we go over exactly what I said again?

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

Please, show me where I'm actually wrong.

[GennGreymane]

No, it wasn't wrong. I never said those things are easy. If I had, THEN I would have been wrong. Since I did not say thoso things, and you even confirmed that they are indeed possible, then I was not wrong, was I?

Shall we go over exactly what I said again?

We did. You just needed the narrative to be I am saying its impossible and private schools don't exist (for some reason you need me to say this so you have any argument to begin with). Neither of which I said. I brought up issues with it. Not sure where you created this assumption.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares if it is international?

What happens in Kansas doesn't even affect a typical EU user in any shape way or form. Why should they care?

Does it matter? They want to discuss things on an international board. Try to keep off EU threads if this is how you feel buckaroo.

[Masark]

It's amazing how many non-Americans pay attention to American politics, especially state politics.

Not really, once you consider the effect that your nation's government and economy has on ours, and how much more autonomous (at least in some regards) your states' governments are compared to our provinces. And also that dumb ideas tend to spread from states to the federal government.

[Machismo]

We did. You just needed the narrative to be I am saying its impossible and private schools don't exist (for some reason you need me to say this so you have any argument to begin with). Neither of which I said. I brought up issues with it. Not sure where you created this assumption.

- - - Updated - - -



Does it matter? They want to discuss things on an international board. Try to keep off EU threads if this is how you feel buckaroo.

No, you went over why you didn't like what I said, but never actually managed to show why it was incorrect.

Here's what I said:

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

And you said:

"I dont even want to begin to explain everything wrong with this statement. "

Apparently you don't want to begin to explain what was wrong with my statement, because you cannot. You don't like what I said, but you cannot actually refute it. Instead, you just want to whine.

[GennGreymane]

No, you went over why you didn't like what I said, but never actually managed to show why it was incorrect.

Here's what I said:

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

And you said:

"I dont even want to begin to explain everything wrong with this statement. "

Apparently you don't want to begin to explain what was wrong with my statement, because you cannot. You don't like what I said, but you cannot actually refute it. In stead, you just want to whine.

I explained it shortly after. Did you not read past my first post? Seems about right. I explained everything wrong within the statement with all the issues that can occur. I don't know why I 100% need to say its impossible and private schools dont exist, which are both false, however I can easily bring up the issues with Joe Shmo making a school in 3 hours. Try again.

So basically you are deciding my argument for me. That's what it seems like. My argument is not a whine, they are truths you cannot accept. Because you need my argument to be what you say it is. Keep your arguments with your self in your head. No need to put one of those voices to my words.

[Machismo]

I explained it shortly after. Did you not read past my first post? Seems about right. I explained everything wrong within the statement with all the issues that can occur. I don't know why I 100% need to say its impossible and private schools dont exist, which are both false, however I can easily bring up the issues with Joe Shmo making a school in 3 hours. Try again.

No, you explained that starting a college is hard, and that some colleges are corrupt as shit. Since I said it was possible, and you seem to think I'm wrong, that means you are arguing that it is impossible. Otherwise, you are agreeing with my initial statement, and that it's correct (that it is poossisible to open a private college). Not once did I say it was easy. If I had, then you could have said I was wrong. Since I only stated that it's possible, then I am correct. My initial statement stands, thanks for agreeing with me.

[Pangean]

Salon is about as bad as stormfront. Also can we get a mod comment about whether it's within the rules to insinuate someone is a neo nazi....that's kind of disgusting

Which had nothing to do with my point. But I am sure he appreciates the hand.

Heh. You read his posts? He doesn't exactly hide it.

[GennGreymane]

No, you explained that starting a college is hard, and that some colleges are corrupt as shit. Since I said it was possible, and you seem to think I'm wrong, that means you are arguing that it is impossible. Otherwise, you are agreeing with my initial statement, and that it's correct (that it is poossisible to open a private college). Not once did I say it was easy. If I had, then you could have said I was wrong. Since I only stated that it's possible, then I am correct. My initial statement stands, thanks for agreeing with me.

Accept my argument for what my words are. I have my own opinion (you don't get to decide that for me for the sake of argument), and I am not a voice in your head that you are arguing with. If you need to make up an argument for me, then your argument is not worth it. Simple as that.

[A dot Ham]

Well too much corporate money is lost overseas, blame that on corporate greed or us having an insane corporate tax rate. There's trillions sitting overseas doing nothing for our economy.

What are you talking about?

Trickle down economy is in favor of reducing corporate tax rate, as those corporations are what stimulate the economy.

Trade agreements however, make it more profitable to close down factories in the US and move to China to exploit their lack of human rights laws and earth-friendly practices.

The two cannot coexist.

I am confused on your position here. Your first response to me comes across like you support reaganomics. Your last response makes it sound like you're against it. Please explain.

[Machismo]

Accept my argument for what my words are. I have my own opinion (you don't get to decide that for me for the sake of argument), and I am not a voice in your head that you are arguing with. If you need to make up an argument for me, then your argument is not worth it. Simple as that.

Then actually show me where my comment was actually wrong. Since I said opening a private college is possible, tell me how that statement is wrong.

[GennGreymane]

Then actually show me where my comment was actually wrong. Since I said opening a private college is possible, tell me how that statement is wrong.

I said I found a lot wrong with that statement and made my list of things that are issues that arise from it. I dont know why you are dictating me to make an argument thats not mine. I thought you were all about freedom. I guess thats a lie.

[breadisfunny]

You assume we should be supporting all those people.

you assume we shouldn't. what exactly is there to gain by refusing aid to people? or do you want crime to increase?

[Derpleton]

ugh as a Right Winger I really wish they'd stop with this shit already. If you want to make everyone richer cut taxes on the Middle Class not the Rich. The Middle Class is much more likely to go out and spend their money on things as most people tend to do I imagine, people spending money = more demand = more jobs. There needs to be money to spend and cutting taxes on people who can have anything they want as is isn't going to solve anything.

[Machismo]

I said I found a lot wrong with that statement and made my list of things that are issues that arise from it. I dont know why you are dictating me to make an argument thats not mine. I thought you were all about freedom. I guess thats a lie.

But you merely wrote about things you didn't like. You never showed what was actually wrong with my statement.

Since you never bothered to actually show what was incorrect about my statement, it seems likely that you cannnot. If that's the case, then I accept your retraction.

[GennGreymane]

But you merely wrote about things you didn't like. You never showed what was actually wrong with my statement.

Since you never bothered to actually show what was incorrect about my statement, it seems likely that you cannnot. If that's the case, then I accept your retraction.

No idea what you are talking about anymore. If you need to make up an argument for me, go ahead. just keep the conversation to your self.

[Klaaktu]

Actually, the reason the banks were bailed out (this was done first by Bush, and then again by Obama) was not trickle down economics. The idea was not "prosperity will trickle down from these banks" but rather "these banks are so large that their failure will destabilize the entire world economy, therefore we must prevent their failure." You can debate all you want about whether that was the right thing to do (I'm not convinced it was) but what isn't up for debate is the reason for doing it.

For what it's worth, the deregulation that allowed those banks to become so large, allowed them to mix their commercial and investment banking activities (essentially gambling on risky securities with people's savings), and allowed the credit rating agencies to rate some mortgages as being far more secure than they actually were, those loosenings of regulation were accomplished by democrats and republicans working together. It was one of the things they actually agreed upon, part of the neoliberal agenda begun by Reagan in the 80s and continued by Clinton in the 90s.

Thank you for finally setting the record straight on this. I find it interesting that nobody has anything to say about your post. Funny, how the record gets set straight and neither side has anything to say.

[Kapadons]

Wait? Are you telling me that if a person gets more money they will just keep it and not invest it in others? This simply cannot be.

So opponents of trickle down always say something like this 'like duh" . Then the next sentence out of their mouths is to give more money to people so they can spend all of it to "stimulate" the economy. Which is it? People save money or people spend money.


And I haven't delved too deep into Kansas economic policies (cause I'm on my phone) but if was "tax breaks to rich, they will give more money to workers", that's a stupid fucking policy. If it was "hire 10,000 more workers or increase your average workers wage by 15%, and we will offset the cost by lowering your tax burden by a certain amount, in theory seems like a solid way for the government to stimulate growth in the private sector. But if they were given tax breaks with no oversight or requirements, you are just asking for trouble.

[Machismo]

you assume we shouldn't. what exactly is there to gain by refusing aid to people? or do you want crime to increase?

I have no problem helping people, I do it all the time. I have a problem forcing others to help people.

[breadisfunny]

You wouldn't need bigger government and more taxes if you would be willing to provide for yourself. We make the false assumption that only government can provide all those things.

you seem to make the equally false assumption that people will provide what has been lost in the quantities previously provided. unless you don't care about watching people starve.

- - - Updated - - -

No idea what you are talking about anymore. If you need to make up an argument for me, go ahead. just keep the conversation to your self.

he's making the classic libertarian argument.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it wasn't wrong. I never said those things are easy. If I had, THEN I would have been wrong. Since I did not say thoso things, and you even confirmed that they are indeed possible, then I was not wrong, was I?

Shall we go over exactly what I said again?

"It is entirely possible to start and/or go to a private university. Most people just want it to be easier, so they opt to spend other people's money, and have the government do it for them."

Please, show me where I'm actually wrong.

it is possible....if your rich or willing to be in debt for the rest of your life until retirement. associate's degrees aren't going to go very far since most jobs want bachelor's or better.