- 27 Dec 2020 22:39
#15145325
I don't see where I called you a shameless liar, on this page, but I do believe I have done so in the past. I also see nowhere that even remotely looks like a request for clarification, so we're starting off poorly.
Nevertheless, if I post something, regardless of who the original author is, I am personally standing behind it. Since I am using it as proof of my claims, if it is wrong, I am wrong. This is pretty simple stuff. I do not see a real way you can be confused on this very basic point. Worse, when it is obviously wrong on it's face, you're ignoring error to push an obviously dishonest point. Here, when an author says "rich people make more pre-tax income, but there is no evidence of growth", he is lying, as I explained above. Whether you don't care to read the article, or you ignore obvious untruths to push your agenda, that makes you dishonest.
If the rich made more pretax income, the GDP increased. I have already explained this, and yet you continue to persist in pushing falsehood...without so much as a counterargument. This is why I say you have a penchant for dishonesty.
Since the rest of your post seems to dance around this point, I'll simply address YOUR claim here, to end the debate.
Inflation has never been so significant, even during the stagflation era, that year to year growth is meaningless. Moreover, if growth for the rich is significant enough to comment on, the underlying point still remains a lie. If he had said "except for the rich...." maybe I would've bitten. But he says the rich made a significant raise, which means that per capita income MUST have risen, even if no one under the top ten percent made an extra dime.
By defending this nonsensical contradiction, it IS your argument. And, since it is bizarre on its face, you are perpetuating falsehood. Especially now that it has been brought to your attention, you cannot claim ignorance for continuing to push claims that are incorrect on their face. You're trying to weasel yourself into a position where you can simultaneously advance this and disavow any responsibility for what you're advocating.
That deserves scorn
Steve_American wrote:I guess I was unclear in the post you quoted. I was asking you to clarify.
Until I understood your point I felt that I could not argue with it.
I still disagree that agreeing with someone else is the same as being a shameless liar.
I don't see where I called you a shameless liar, on this page, but I do believe I have done so in the past. I also see nowhere that even remotely looks like a request for clarification, so we're starting off poorly.
Nevertheless, if I post something, regardless of who the original author is, I am personally standing behind it. Since I am using it as proof of my claims, if it is wrong, I am wrong. This is pretty simple stuff. I do not see a real way you can be confused on this very basic point. Worse, when it is obviously wrong on it's face, you're ignoring error to push an obviously dishonest point. Here, when an author says "rich people make more pre-tax income, but there is no evidence of growth", he is lying, as I explained above. Whether you don't care to read the article, or you ignore obvious untruths to push your agenda, that makes you dishonest.
I do agree that your point to Rugoz is correct. However, this has little effect on the claim in the study that tax cuts on the rich increase the GDP. Increasing the GDP is the definition of "growing the economy".
If the rich made more pretax income, the GDP increased. I have already explained this, and yet you continue to persist in pushing falsehood...without so much as a counterargument. This is why I say you have a penchant for dishonesty.
Since the rest of your post seems to dance around this point, I'll simply address YOUR claim here, to end the debate.
. . . Note the word 'real', meaning adjusted for inflation. Note also the phrase 'per capita' meaning adjusted for population growth. Note the word 'significantly' meaning more than a trivial, or maybe, small way.
Inflation has never been so significant, even during the stagflation era, that year to year growth is meaningless. Moreover, if growth for the rich is significant enough to comment on, the underlying point still remains a lie. If he had said "except for the rich...." maybe I would've bitten. But he says the rich made a significant raise, which means that per capita income MUST have risen, even if no one under the top ten percent made an extra dime.
By defending this nonsensical contradiction, it IS your argument. And, since it is bizarre on its face, you are perpetuating falsehood. Especially now that it has been brought to your attention, you cannot claim ignorance for continuing to push claims that are incorrect on their face. You're trying to weasel yourself into a position where you can simultaneously advance this and disavow any responsibility for what you're advocating.
That deserves scorn