Democrats want to raise taxes — but only on red states

[shagdrum]

And no matter how many times you respond, you always leave out the fact that I have invited you numerous times to bring up any relevant points you like from the other thread.

So, instead of confronting my main point, you are attempting to change the focus to what was an aside that I brought up. Got it

BTW, impressive little temper tantrum.

 

[fossten]

turnabout is fair play.

Ah, the old "he started it" canard, from back in 2nd grade, right? How very mature.

No, you're just trolling and attacking, while at the same time criticizing Shag for attacking. If you're truly above the fray, you don't become part of it. Otherwise you lose any moral credibility and the discussion loses focus. It takes two to tango, and you consistently devolve into flame wars with just about anybody here that disagrees with you. You claim that criticism of your debate logic is a personal attack, and then you immediately greenlight yourself to hurl insults.

It's highly immature and you don't get to claim the high ground when you use personal attacks, regardless of whether or not you started it.

 

[FIND]

So, instead of confronting my main point, you are attempting to change the focus to what was an aside that I brought up. Got it

BTW, impressive little temper tantrum.

When exactly did you even attempt to make a point, aside from trying to call me names? The only point I even saw you try and make was when you said that you guys have discussed this before. I said, I don't care, but feel free to contribute stuff from that discussion if you really feel it is relevant and important. That, and the speculative propaganda you posted wherein you tried to justify your statement that regulation drives prices, that lacked any facts or proof. Prices drive regulation. Always have, always will. The more money there is in something, the more law and government there will be in it, unless there is enough money to pay the government to stay out of it.

Also, any idea when you are going to attempt to talk about the subject matter instead of just attacking me because you know your position is to weak to ever possibly justify?

 

[FIND]

Ah, the old "he started it" canard, from back in 2nd grade, right? How very mature.

No, you're just trolling and attacking, while at the same time criticizing Shag for attacking. If you're truly above the fray, you don't become part of it. Otherwise you lose any moral credibility and the discussion loses focus. It takes two to tango, and you consistently devolve into flame wars with just about anybody here that disagrees with you. You claim that criticism of your debate logic is a personal attack, and then you immediately greenlight yourself to hurl insults.

It's highly immature and you don't get to claim the high ground when you use personal attacks, regardless of whether or not you started it.

I didn't claim the high ground now did I? I met his post with a similar post. If you guys aren't man enough to deal with that, I got some dresses for you and my dishes need done.

 

[shagdrum]

When exactly did you even attempt to make a point, aside from trying to call me names?

For starters? Post #3 of this thread where I said this...

Actually, economic studies have confirmed that, when it comes to land use and housing, it is excessive regulation that leads to the high cost of living. In fact, that is the only explanation that makes any economic sense.

And post #11 of this thread where I said this...

As expected you simply dismiss any argument that doesn't logically line up with your leftist worldview; empirical facts and truth be damned...

Here is are some points that economist Thomas Sowell made in his book, Economic Facts And Fallacies:

As one economic study pointed out: "The population of Las Vegas almost tripled between 1980 and 2000, but the real median housing price did not change". However, the average price of houses in Palo Alto, California, nearly quadrupled in one decade without any increase in population at all. The difference is that severe building restrictions began in Palo Alto during that decade - the 1970's - but not in Las Vegas, where builders could simply construct new homes as the demand for housing increased. But not one new home was built in Palo Alto during the decade when its housing prices nearly quadrupled.

A similar pattern showing housing prices affected more by building restrictions than by increased demand for housing was shown in New York City, where "tens of thousands of new units were built in Manhattan during the 1950's whild prices remained flat." In later years, especially after severe building restrictions began in the 1970's, that all changed: "In spite of skyrocketing prices, the housing stock has grown by less then 10 percent since 1980" in Manhattan, according to an article in an economcs journal 25 years later. Moreover, the proportion of new housing units in buildings 20 stories tall and higher, which had been increasing in Manhattan from the beginning of the twentieth century until 1970, suddenly reversed and began a decades-long decline.​

I wrote a paper this spring on the origins of the Community Reinvestment Act for an Urban Economics class I was taking. Here is a relevant excerpt that touches on this issue:

The Demographia [International Housing Affordability] Survey points out that five of the six least affordable housing markets are in the United States. Those markets (including median multiples) are; Los Angeles, CA (11.5), Salinas, CA (10.9), San Francisco, CA (10.8), Honolulu, HI (10.3) and San Diego, CA (10.0). Of those five, four are from California. In fact, if you look at the table of least affordable housing markets in the survey, the United States shows up 16 times. All, but four of those markets from the United States are in California; the others being Honolulu, HI (10.3), West Palm Beach, FL (7.1), New York, NY-NJ,CT-PA (7.0) and Boston, MA-NH (6.1). However, of the top twenty most affordable housing markets, the United States has fourteen.

...A study by Randal O’Toole points out that in fact the housing prices in many of those “least affordable” areas were generally on par with the nation as a whole until the 1970’s . In that study, Mr. O’Toole confronts a few of the explanations for this disparity between most of the country and these “least affordable” places to live.
One possible explanation is that rising incomes could lead to rising home prices. However, O’Toole points out that places like Houston and Dallas actually had abnormally high increases in average income but house prices stayed at or below the national average. As O’Toole puts it:

Dallas has consistently maintained family incomes about 10 percent above the US average while it’s housing prices are generally lower than the US average ​

...Mr. O’Toole finds a statistically significant correlation between these “least affordable” areas and heavier housing restrictions, or “smart growth” policies. As he puts it:

In most cases, the decade in which housing markets became unaffordable closely follow the approval of state growth-management laws or restrictive local plans.​

The fact is that "smart growth" policies and other government restrictions on housing, construction, land use, etc. that became in vogue during the 1970's are primarily what produced the differences in costs of living (at least in the housing market). These restrictions were (and are) at their worst in areas dominated by leftist politics, primarily at the local and state levels. In regulating, land use, housing, construction, etc., the government is handicapping supply and insuring that it cannot keep up with rising demand.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence
-John Adams​

Your intentional obtuse dishonesty doesn't change the fact that I made a point then backed it up and your only response was to dismiss it and start in with the personal attacks.

 

[shagdrum]

I met his post with a similar post.

So you actually made a logical counterpoint to the point I raised? Where?

 

[FIND]

So you actually made a logical counterpoint to the point I raised? Where?

I said this in response to post #3:

No. I don't want to get into it on this issue, but this is just horribly wrong. Now, aside from your apparent wanting to pretend supply and demand economics don't exist so that you can make a convenient argument, you can make some links, but it is just coincidence. More populated areas tend to have heavier regulations, this is a consequence of the population density. If anything you could say that a climate of higher regulation is spawned by the higher cost of living, not the other way around. No, I am not interested in seeing some blog, essay or other propaganda writing that suggests otherwise. If you had an actual economic study that, idk, made use of facts, I would be interested in reading that. Otherwise, don't bother responding, I am not arguing this with you and this is my final statement on this particular matter unless you have more compelling evidence.

You responded with propaganda that was had no factual basis or honest research to back it up. The only credibility you cited was calling the authors economists, and that they are lauded for their contributions to the conservative machine. Unless you can provide more compelling evidence or a more reasonable argument about why I am wrong about the basics of economics, instead of a "You are wrong, I has propaganda, suck it" post, I have no wish to further discuss that with you.

Your second post on this matter was just a continuation of your first, that did not address anything that I had said. You just restated your position, and justified your position by use of political propaganda and an essay you had written for a class. If you wish to justify your opinion, then as I have invited so many times in the past, please do so by citing more than just your opinion as a reference.

Besides, there was no further need to continue that discussion. I had stated that price drives regulation, and you stated regulation drives price. Since you are unwilling to offer evidence, research, or anything credible to support your position, then I see no reason to do so either. My statements are what are commonly accepted in the world of economics. The burden of proof is on you to prove that all the primary schools of economic thought are wrong. Simply quoting someones convenient argument where they take examples out of context, and avoid discussion or consideration of the more obvious reasoning, just so that they can advocate a lassaiz faire business environment does not prove anything, aside from the fact that you are intellectually lazy and uninterested in the truth. You are in fact, only interested in things that fit your world view, perception of reality or support your political agenda.

Now, since you quoted John Adams at the end of your post, I would hope that you would have just a small inclination to respect the value of facts, and provide some next time you demand I continue debate with you. Also, next time try and show a little intellectual honesty by considering the other possibilities for the change in housing prices. If, and only if, you can provide some evidence that those were in fact not the cause for the change in housing prices, I will give your opinion full consideration. However, as it stands, you have given me an opinion, provided one possible cause, while ignoring others, and stated that it must be the only cause because you can find another example that can be shown without proper context and made to look like it has a similarity.

 

[fossten]

No. I don't want to get into it on this issue,

Huh. Then why post?

but this is just horribly wrong.

This is proof by assertion and begs the question - where is your subsequent CITED evidence? It's nonexistent.

Now, aside from your apparent wanting to pretend supply and demand economics don't exist so that you can make a convenient argument

Nasty, vitriolic tone attempting to antagonize, mischaracterization and ad hominem to boot

you can make some links, but it is just coincidence.

Poisoning the well, moving the goalposts.

More populated areas tend to have heavier regulations, this is a consequence of the population density. If anything you could say that a climate of higher regulation is spawned by the higher cost of living, not the other way around.

Irrelevant.

No, I am not interested in seeing some blog, essay or other propaganda writing that suggests otherwise.

Dismissal, moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, clear attempt to shut down discussion and get the last word without bothering to discuss in good faith - see your first line where you said you didn't want to get into this...

If you had an actual economic study that, idk, made use of facts, I would be interested in reading that.

More of the same, never mind that you'd simply dismiss the study if Shag bothered to link one...

Otherwise, don't bother responding, I am not arguing this with you and this is my final statement on this particular matter unless you have more compelling evidence.

Well we know that isn't true - you just wanted a flame war. Either that, or you have no self control.

Dude. It's an internet site. If you say you don't want to discuss something, then DON'T. Get up from the keyboard, go find something to do. But don't whine when others respond.

In short, you want to say "ZOMG U R TEH FAIL AND I AM TEH WINZ SO STFU!" and that's the end of the discussion. So actually, your posts are a big waste of time for everybody.

Man, I'm glad I have the 'ignore' feature.

Unlike you, I can say this and mean it - this really will be my last response to you. Period.

 

[Calabrio]

I said this in response to post #3:



You responded with propaganda that was had no factual basis or honest research to back it up. The only credibility you cited was calling the authors economists, and that they are lauded for their contributions to the conservative machine. Unless you can provide more compelling evidence or a more reasonable argument about why I am wrong about the basics of economics, instead of a "You are wrong, I has propaganda, suck it" post, I have no wish to further discuss that with you.

Your second post on this matter was just a continuation of your first, that did not address anything that I had said. You just restated your position, and justified your position by use of political propaganda and an essay you had written for a class. If you wish to justify your opinion, then as I have invited so many times in the past, please do so by citing more than just your opinion as a reference.

Besides, there was no further need to continue that discussion. I had stated that price drives regulation, and you stated regulation drives price. Since you are unwilling to offer evidence, research, or anything credible to support your position, then I see no reason to do so either. My statements are what are commonly accepted in the world of economics. The burden of proof is on you to prove that all the primary schools of economic thought are wrong. Simply quoting someones convenient argument where they take examples out of context, and avoid discussion or consideration of the more obvious reasoning, just so that they can advocate a lassaiz faire business environment does not prove anything, aside from the fact that you are intellectually lazy and uninterested in the truth. You are in fact, only interested in things that fit your world view, perception of reality or support your political agenda.

Now, since you quoted John Adams at the end of your post, I would hope that you would have just a small inclination to respect the value of facts, and provide some next time you demand I continue debate with you. Also, next time try and show a little intellectual honesty by considering the other possibilities for the change in housing prices. If, and only if, you can provide some evidence that those were in fact not the cause for the change in housing prices, I will give your opinion full consideration. However, as it stands, you have given me an opinion, provided one possible cause, while ignoring others, and stated that it must be the only cause because you can find another example that can be shown without proper context and made to look like it has a similarity.

YouTube- ‪Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathalon)‬‎

 

[shagdrum]

You responded with propaganda that was had no factual basis or honest research to back it up.

No, I did not and you know it.

But actually admitting that would take away your favorite tool for dismissing opposing points of view; labeling them "propaganda". Which is all you can do as you can never honestly confront the points raised; the internal logic or the fact. The truth and reality has absolutely no bearing on or viewpoint and instead of correcting that flaw, you embrace and defend it. You assume that any argument from an opposing view is a priori illegitimate and dishonest, then you exclude all opposing views from the debate. That is precisely the point raised in the first article of this thread (which you also irrationally dismissed out of hand).

That is why no honest, civil dialog is possible with you, you insult by writing off opposing points of view regardless of the argument they make or the facts they cite. If the only way you can discuss is by trying to dismiss opposing views and win by default, you need to grow up as you are childishly incapable of any honest dialog and only offend those of us who are interested in honest dialog; thus marginalizing yourself.

 

[FIND]

No, I did not and you know it.

But actually admitting that would take away your favorite tool for dismissing opposing points of view; labeling them "propaganda". Which is all you can do as you can never honestly confront the points raised; the internal logic or the fact. The truth and reality has absolutely no bearing on or viewpoint and instead of correcting that flaw, you embrace and defend it. You assume that any argument from an opposing view is a priori illegitimate and dishonest, then you exclude all opposing views from the debate. That is precisely the point raised in the first article of this thread (which you also irrationally dismissed out of hand).

That is why no honest, civil dialog is possible with you, you insult by writing off opposing points of view regardless of the argument they make or the facts they cite. If the only way you can discuss is by trying to dismiss opposing views and win by default, you need to grow up as you are childishly incapable of any honest dialog and only offend those of us who are interested in honest dialog; thus marginalizing yourself.

So you point to a thread where you tried to say that it was impossible to discuss anything with someone who believes something different than you....

Once again, you are engaging in another cop-out to hide the fact that you are not interested in honest debate.

 

[FIND]

Huh. Then why post?

Because what he said was wrong.

This is proof by assertion and begs the question - where is your subsequent CITED evidence? It's nonexistent.

There was no evidence cited in the statement I responded to. I simply stated common knowledge.

Nasty, vitriolic tone attempting to antagonize, mischaracterization and ad hominem to boot

Really? How so?

Poisoning the well, moving the goalposts.

Do you know what either of those terms mean? I stated there were only coincidental links. If he felt otherwise, he could demonstrate a relationship.

Irrelevant.

No, that is exactly what we were discussing.

Dismissal, moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, clear attempt to shut down discussion and get the last word without bothering to discuss in good faith - see your first line where you said you didn't want to get into this...

If he responded with anything that was not propaganda, that would be acceptable. If he responded with anything backed by facts and honest research, that too would have been acceptable.

More of the same, never mind that you'd simply dismiss the study if Shag bothered to link one...

Now this, is a clear attempt to shut down discussions. Sadly, this reflects every other post that you and shag have made on this matter.

Well we know that isn't true - you just wanted a flame war. Either that, or you have no self control.

Hey, you guys wanted to flame. You guys whined because I didn't continue the discussion. Most of this thread is you guys flaming and calling names because I wouldn't continue that particular discussion, or because I would not capitulate to the ideas and opinions you guys had formed in an earlier thread about dealerships.

Dude. It's an internet site. If you say you don't want to discuss something, then DON'T. Get up from the keyboard, go find something to do. But don't whine when others respond.

quid pro quo

In short, you want to say "ZOMG U R TEH FAIL AND I AM TEH WINZ SO STFU!" and that's the end of the discussion. So actually, your posts are a big waste of time for everybody.

Man, I'm glad I have the 'ignore' feature.

Unlike you, I can say this and mean it - this really will be my last response to you. Period.

yeah right. As usual, you misrepresent me and attempt to demonize me.

 

[FIND]

YouTube- ‪Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathalon)‬‎

Now that was the least intelligent response of the bunch. Always wonderful watching a moderator join in on a flame war to support the other idiots who lack the intelligence to actually engage in any type of debate.

 

[foxpaws]

It would almost seem like there's an effort taking place to accelerate the depression in the red states.

However, the 'red states' get more federal funds returned to them when you compare them to the 'blue states' which get less than dollar for dollar...

Perhaps it is time that the red states quit feeding at the trough so much, and then turning around and complaining about federal taxes. It would be more sincere if they actually practiced what they preached.

Sort of like when the governors of the states that complained most about stimulus funds stand in front of the projects funded by the stimulus funds and cut that ribbon, or whatever photo op they have lined up.

 

[fossten]

Sort of like when the governors of the states that complained most about stimulus funds stand in front of the projects funded by the stimulus funds and cut that ribbon, or whatever photo op they have lined up.

Parroting lefty talking points from ThinkProgress again, eh fox?

Remember Obama saying he wanted to be President of all states, not just blue states? So much for uniting the country - Obama is more divisive than any President in history - and you not only drink the Kool Aid, you spew it all over everybody else.

 

[foxpaws]

Parroting lefty talking points from ThinkProgress again, eh fox?

Remember Obama saying he wanted to be President of all states, not just blue states? So much for uniting the country - Obama is more divisive than any President in history - and you not only drink the Kool Aid, you spew it all over everybody else.

So, foss - once again, all you can come up with is irrational, personal digs - right? And I would imagine if I look at your posts, I can see exactly where all your talking points come from... and it isn't going to be the Encyclopedia Britannica.

In this case the red states do get more money. Perhaps that is what the point was - to draw attention to the fact that the 'red states' say one thing, but actually are pocketing federal funds at an alarming rate. Just as some of those governors and representatives of those Red States decried the stimulus, but aren't turning the money down - and in fact, are going to DC to plead their case try to get more of that money...

However, rather than find points that disagree with what I said - it is just easier to try to belittle me, or attack Obama. The rights' favorite pastime. When you know you are wrong - bring up Obama - that's it - that will distract everyone... Why actually look at the problem, in this case Red States receiving large amounts of federal money, and they hypocritically decry the fact that there is federal money to be had.

 

[fossten]

However, rather than find points that disagree with what I said - it is just easier to try to belittle me, or attack Obama. The rights' favorite pastime. When you know you are wrong - bring up Obama - that's it - that will distract everyone... Why actually look at the problem, in this case Red States receiving large amounts of federal money, and they hypocritically decry the fact that there is federal money to be had.

Oh you poor, poor victim. Cry me a freaking river, foxy.

As I've already said to FIND, you're welcome to post about all the wonderful things that Obama is accomplishing - instead of whining that we're picking on him. I'm surprised - given that he's been in office for 20 months, you haven't come up with much.

As far as disagreement with what you said - you're using correlation to prove causation.

It's true that blue states have a smaller ratio of benefits/tax, but do you consider why? There are multiple possible factors. The most obvious one that you've overlooked is the progressive tax ratios per state based on GDP. Poor states pay less in federal taxes, and will receive higher benefits per capita. California pays far more in taxes and receives far more in benefits than Alabama, yet the tax/benefit ratio is higher for California. In other words, states with a higher tax burden tend to vote Democrat.

It just shows that you can manipulate statistics to say anything you want.

If each state pays an equal percentage of its taxes based on GDP, flyover country will pay less in taxes - and receive fewer benefits in total dollars. The ratios are less important when you consider overall money paid and received.

How about you tally the total amount paid by red states and compare that with blue states, and ditto for the total benefits received respectively, and then we'll talk.

 

[shagdrum]

However, the 'red states' get more federal funds returned to them when you compare them to the 'blue states' which get less than dollar for dollar...

So...the individuals in the red states are prohibited from raising any objection to the system?

Interesting way to frame the debate to implicitly exclude legitimate objections. Looking to win by default again, I see.

Perhaps it is time that the red states quit feeding at the trough so much, and then turning around and complaining about federal taxes. It would be more sincere if they actually practiced what they preached.

How about, instead of shifting the focus to vague, abstract "red states", you focus on the arguments being made and the individuals making them.

If your entire argument is to delegitimize opposing views, you have no argument and show yourself as a troll looking to inhibit discourse.

 

[shagdrum]

There was no evidence cited in the statement I responded to.

That is a lie and you know it.

However, implicit in that statement is the premise that any viewpoint that disagrees with your viewpoint is self-evidently illegitimate. There can be no more intolerant, close-minded, childish act in political discourse then to assume you have a monopoly on knowledge, reason and the truth.

I simply stated common knowledge.

Common knowledge...in your sheltered worldview. The whole point of any honest discourse is to attempt to understand different world views and use that as a means to critically analyze your own world views. To simply attempt to dismiss a priori any opposing worldview is the height of rudeness because it intentionally inhibits honest discourse, typically toward the end of posturing to make one seem more intelligent then they are; to shift the focus of the debate to self and self-aggrandize.

Politics is not about self expression and it is dangerous and childish to approach it as such.

 

[foxpaws]

So...the individuals in the red states are prohibited from raising any objection to the system?

Interesting way to frame the debate to implicitly exclude legitimate objections. Looking to win by default again, I see.

Certainly they are allowed to object - but their hypocrisy also needs to be pointed out as well.

How about, instead of shifting the focus to vague, abstract "red states", you focus on the arguments being made and the individuals making them.

Since Foss brought in Think Progress - they have a nice list of 114 Republicans who have gladly taken the money, taken credit for getting the money, after they opposed the bill...

If your entire argument is to delegitimize opposing views, you have no argument and show yourself as a troll looking to inhibit discourse.

Well, at least I believe I was on topic... unlike 80% of the posts on this thread you have made Shag...

 

[shagdrum]

Certainly they are allowed to object - but their hypocrisy also needs to be pointed out as well.

There is nothing hypocritical about them. It is only when you switch the focus to the state level that the appearance of hypocrisy is given.

Besides, hypocricy itself is an irrelevant criticism. Hypocrisy depends, in large part, on perspective and everyone is hypocritical. The only time it starts to matter is when there is a disingenuous double standard at play that hurts credibility. However, that is not the case in this instance.

The talking point you are espousing is misleading and only serves to confuse the issue. In the manner it is being used, it serves to delegitimize very legitimate concerns.

If you can't confront the objections on their merits; if you have to reframe the debate to win by default, then you have no argument and your actions only serve as a hindrance to honest and open dialog.

 

[fossten]

So, fox, how much stimulus money was spent in blue districts vs. red districts?

 

[foxpaws]

How about you tally the total amount paid by red states and compare that with blue states, and ditto for the total benefits received respectively, and then we'll talk.

Here you go - I found the source - you can get out the calculator...

I know red states take while blue states give - you need to disprove that...

 

[foxpaws]

There is nothing hypocritical about them. It is only when you switch the focus to the state level that the appearance of hypocrisy is given.

Besides, hypocricy itself is an irrelevant criticism. Hypocrisy depends, in large part, on perspective and everyone is hypocritical. The only time it starts to matter is when there is a disingenuous double standard at play that hurts credibility. However, that is not the case in this instance.

The talking point you are espousing is misleading and only serves to confuse the issue. In the manner it is being used, it serves to delegitimize very legitimate concerns.

If you can't confront the objections on their merits; if you have to reframe the debate to win by default, then you have no argument and your actions only serve as a hindrance to honest and open dialog.

Why it isn't the same on the state level - the Reps voted against, complained, did everything in their power to make sure the stimulus bill didn't get passed - and then - they turn around and take the money and pose with the big check... that is a double standard. It does bring into question their credibility.

I haven't reframed - I have expanded - there is a huge difference... although you wouldn't know about that, since Alexander didn't delve into that Shag.

 

[fossten]

Here you go - I found the source - you can get out the calculator...

I know red states take while blue states give - you need to disprove that...

You'll forgive me if I don't trust you enough to download a link that you've supplied to my computer.

And your usage of the word 'give' is humorously inaccurate.

And again, how much stimulus money was spent state by state? (You'd be the hypocrite now)

So, fox, with regard to income - whose money is it - ours or the government's?