You will get them when you stop demanding and only then. Trying to find something that you might possibly understand, is beginning to look like a fool's errand. You will never be able to understand logic.

 

logical fallacies

You don't even know what logic is. Here is a list of logical fallacies. Point out the next time I make one, and explain how I made it.

*not_secure_link*www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

Reagan and revenue

Paul Krugman

January 17, 2008, 7:03 PM


​

federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000...

here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

*not_secure_link*krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/
​

​

 

You just showed me a total failure in logic. You are trying to use a list to find it. You must be able to process facts in a logical manner, form your own opinions and act accordingly.

If you don't already possess logic in your thinking, nothing you ever read will give it to you.

 

Where is my "total failure in logic?"

That is one more assertion you cannot substantiate. If my thinking is illogical, it should be easy for you to explain how. What fallacies am I guilty of? List them.

 

See my edit, Mr Spock.

 

You say that of me.

I prove it of you.

 

Fixed your typo.

 

It doesn't take much of a search. And Limbaugh was saying it on the day Obama was inaugurated.

*not_secure_link*thinkprogress.org/2009/02/28/santorum-cpac-obama/

 

I believe that the President is trying to increase jobs, but it is not working. Recently, I enrolled in a Federal Jobs Training program which to make a very long story short, lost its funding. How in the world can a program designed to assist the unemployed lose its' funding? No one is willing to answer that question for me.

Yes, I agree that the Republicans in office are creating gridlock but at the same time, the Democrats are the majority in office. However, my orgininal post was the fact that on BOTH sides, politicians should be setting their personal political ambitions aside for the good of the country. Neither are willing to do that.

 

The character, Mr. Spock, was incredibly logical on all matters except human endeavors and relationships. You seem to have some of those traits, you use logic in an illogical way. Taking bits and pieces of information and applying them in an irrelevant manner.

You try to take the nutritional properties of milk and use it to describe the workings of an internal combustion engine.

 

In comment #407 I did not prove that you made a logical fallacy. I did something even easier and more obvious. I proved that you made a statement that is factually incorrect. This is what you said, tenguy:

That's not true. Admit it.

BTW, I'm still waiting for those tax receipts.

 

Tenguy, if tax revenues rose (in real dollars, as a percent of GDP) after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, why did the deficit balloon in both cases? And if they fell during periods of higher tax rates, why did the deficit NOT balloon, and in fact, fell?

 

Here....you can both chew on this.

*not_secure_link*www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

 

The deficit is not caused by tax revenues rising or falling, deficits are caused by spending more than you have available.

One of my chief complaints of both Reagan and Bush, is that they failed to reign in the spending.

Accounting is so freaking simple, if you reduce it to debits and credits. Why politicians do not see this is beyond me.

 

Damn it Kimi, I was trying to make him whine for this.

(But thanks anyways)

 

False Analogy

The false or faulty analogy fallacy takes the form of argument by analogy in which the comparison is misleading in at least one important aspect.
Example: "There were wonderful psychologists who passed away several decades ago. If they could be effective in what they did without reading any of the studies or other articles that have been published in the last several decades, there's no need for me to read any of those works in order to be effective."

*not_secure_link*kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php

 

You are hopeless.

 

It's caused by both. Increased spending doesn't adequately explain the deficit trend lines, unless you're saying that Reagan and Bush increased spending far more dramatically than Clinton did, which makes me wonder why conservatives always accuse democrats of being big spenders.