Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal myths"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Angband (Talk); changed back to last version by Graham)
(Fetus rights)
Line 77: Line 77:
  
 
P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 
P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Fetus rights ==
 +
 +
'''The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.'''
 +
 +
I've been going over our own rights and I have to say, it's tough to give them to a fetus.
 +
 +
:1st: While a good idea, they don't really talk much. And besides, if they have the right to free speech, their host mothers won't have any rest.
 +
:2nd: While I personally am all for gun rights, over here I'll make an exception. The recoil of a gun can harm fetus', besides, the exit wound on the mother would be awful.
 +
:3rd: There really isn't any room in the womb for soldiers, besides, I doubt they would be stationed there.
 +
:4th: What exactly would they be looking for anyway, the charges would be dismissed for a lack of probable cause.
 +
:5th: Like I said they don't talk much. Due process isn't really applicable
 +
:6th: Might apply, without a speedy trial, after birth it's as if their in a new jurisdiction.
 +
:7th: Jury of his peers would be tough, fetuses are always trying to get out of jury duty by saying they're too young to register.
 +
:8th: Bail them out, huh? How do they get transported to prison in the first place, (I agree that the cruel and unusual punishment part applies though).
 +
:9th: Need a joke for this one.
 +
:10th: Here too.
 +
 +
A belated Aprils fool day gift.
 +
 +
'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:36, 9 April 2008

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? DanH 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? HelpJazz 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm ripping this apart one by one

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in Science classes. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. Graham 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? HelpJazz 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... Graham 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm ripping you a new one!

Here you go, sport!


"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil­lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

Chart1 lg.gif

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil­lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [1]

From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? AuH2O
Libertarians do ;-) HelpJazz 10:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas­ing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 re­cession) shows that this is exactly what hap­pened (see Table 3):

Table 3 lg.gif
  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
  • Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec­utive quarters.
  • The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi­dend payouts increased as well.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turn­around began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the sup­ply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in mar­ginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[2] --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) Graham 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
  • When you are refuted, have the good grace to accept defeat. Don't respond with more talking points from moveon or daily kos. Most responsible economists would never say all budget deficits are bad. And again, read the Constitution! Presidents cannot appropriate money! That was, 75% of the time since FDR, a liberal, Democrat-controlled Congress. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all I don't read Move on or Daily Kos. I stick to reading the Irish Times, if anything (The Centre-Right paper in my country) or the Economist when I want a more Liberal perspective on things.

Presidents do not appropriate money - but they can veto. Add to this the fact there was a Republican Congress, the President could have balanced the Budget. The fact that he did not is a testament to his lack of fiscal responsibility. Graham 17:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P-S Going all Keynesian (deficit spending) on me TK!?? I might have expected that from a crusty old Liberal like myself but you... :-O Graham 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)


P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? Graham 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fetus rights

The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.

I've been going over our own rights and I have to say, it's tough to give them to a fetus.

1st: While a good idea, they don't really talk much. And besides, if they have the right to free speech, their host mothers won't have any rest.
2nd: While I personally am all for gun rights, over here I'll make an exception. The recoil of a gun can harm fetus', besides, the exit wound on the mother would be awful.
3rd: There really isn't any room in the womb for soldiers, besides, I doubt they would be stationed there.
4th: What exactly would they be looking for anyway, the charges would be dismissed for a lack of probable cause.
5th: Like I said they don't talk much. Due process isn't really applicable
6th: Might apply, without a speedy trial, after birth it's as if their in a new jurisdiction.
7th: Jury of his peers would be tough, fetuses are always trying to get out of jury duty by saying they're too young to register.
8th: Bail them out, huh? How do they get transported to prison in the first place, (I agree that the cruel and unusual punishment part applies though).
9th: Need a joke for this one.
10th: Here too.

A belated Aprils fool day gift.

---user:DLerner--- 11:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)