Obama gets UR down to 5.6 in 2 yrs Romney wanted four years to get to 5.9

[SwimExpert]

Why can't you explain what is illogical or non-sensible about my argument? You don't know do you?

Mainly because you are intentionally structuring your argument in a rhetorical manner that purposely abandons logical function in favor of "sounding good." But if you want to do some research look up "moving the goal post fallacy" and categorical syllogisms. Might also do you some good to do some reading on necessary and sufficient causes.

Your argument started with "primary cause" and then shifted to "contributing factor" and back to "primary cause." You are using these as if they were interchangeable (which reminds me, you should also look up fallacy of equivocation). A "contributing factor" can be one of a great many things, none of which are necessarily a "primary cause." For example, a primary cause for John Doe's death could be cardiac arrest subsequent to a strong electric shock. A contributing factor could be a lifetime of malnutrition that caused vein weakness which led to arterial hemorrhage during resuscitation attempts. Another example is a forest fire that begins with an unattended camp fire. The camp fire could be the primary cause. But strong winds could become a contributing factor. Contributing factors can often be entirely separate from primary causes, and may in fact be continually present and otherwise innocuous phenomena. Logically speaking, a "contributing factor" is typically a necessary cause not a sufficient cause of an end result. And the sufficient cause catalyst event that instantiates an occurrence may have several present necessary causes, none of which may actually be related to said catalyst and may only contribute incidentally after the sufficient cause occurs.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SE 10521398

A "contributing factor" can be one of a great many things, none of which are necessarily a "primary cause."

I used the phrase 'one of the primary causes' and that is one as many primary causes that contributed.

Your trivial diversion attempt is not working - unless you misquote what I originally wrote.

So when you figure out the difference between saying 'a or the primary cause' ( (singular) versus One of many primary causes' (plural) get back to me.

I wrote the Bush tax cuts were one of the primary causes of income disparity. As one of the primary causes of income disparity it surely contributed to it. Why do you think it doesn't?

The primary argument here is about the fact that Obama out performed Romney's forecast on the jobs issue - and beat him in half the time Romney wanted if he were elected.

what is illogical or non-sensible about my argument?

So when you accept that your attempt at diversion has failed you can try to make an argument that stands up against mine.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Here is a shortened response:

Your argument started with "primary cause" and then shifted to "contributing factor" and back to "primary cause."

That is a lie. I started with 'primary causes' - stayed with 'primary causes' - and am still with 'primary causes' .

 

[BluesLegend]

BL 10514358

I love the liberal contradictions, so libs it seems the current lower taxes on the 'rich' is working is that what you are saying?

Another crash and burn by a Tea Party know-nothing:

.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb January 2, 2013
With Tuesday’s House vote, the George W. Bush tax cuts, born in 2001, reach a new milestone. Originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, they are now permanent (or most of them, anyway). Congress voted to extend the income tax cuts for most families earning under $450,000 a year, while taxing capital gains, dividends and tax breaks at higher rates for upper-income earners.

. The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

I don't need explain why BluesLegend has the blues. It is so obvious that Obama and Dems forced the end of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. The cuts for the rich expired on January 01 2013 producing the economic up turn that Romney knowingly now would have delayed.

You need to retire your silly little emoticon Mr. discombobulated Blues.

^^^ lmao its great to hear the 'rich' are now paying their fair share and we don't need to raise their taxes further. lol

 

[rightwinger]

Selected stats aimed at the low information left. Yeah , woop-de-do the seasonal hiring of bartenders and waiters in December when most of the labor force dropped out of the system and are no longer tracked. It's too late, Barry is down to 1/3 of influence in the federal government.

President Obama is currently the only one in government capable of taking action in Government

Oh, really? In another thread you said that Boehner shut down the govt.

you are FOS winger/jake

Try to keep up

The shutdown was a result of inaction on the part of Congress

 

[SwimExpert]

SE 10521398

A "contributing factor" can be one of a great many things, none of which are necessarily a "primary cause."

I used the phrase 'one of the primary causes' and that is one as many primary causes that contributed.

Your trivial diversion attempt is not working - unless you misquote what I originally wrote.

So when you figure out the difference between saying 'a or the primary cause' ( (singular) versus One of many primary causes' (plural) get back to me.

I wrote the Bush tax cuts were one of the primary causes of income disparity. As one of the primary causes of income disparity it surely contributed to it. Why do you think it doesn't?

The primary argument here is about the fact that Obama out performed Romney's forecast on the jobs issue - and beat him in half the time Romney wanted if he were elected.

what is illogical or non-sensible about my argument?

So when you accept that your attempt at diversion has failed you can try to make an argument that stands up against mine.

Yep. Just like I said. You are purposely disregarding logic. I spelled out the logical failings, and you're just doubling down on your stupid.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is a lie. I started with 'primary causes' - stayed with 'primary causes' - and am still with 'primary causes' .

People much smarter than me can say the Bush tax cuts contributed to widening income equality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That is a lie. I started with 'primary causes' - stayed with 'primary causes' - and am still with 'primary causes' .

People much smarter than me can say the Bush tax cuts contributed to widening income equality.

Can't you read?

No. I wrote the Bush tax cuts were one of the primary causes of income disparity. As one of the primary causes of income disparity it surely contributed to it. Why do you think it doesn't?

"One of" many a nit-picker you are. You might be the primary one though.

Is there a limit of only "one" primary cause of something as complex and entrenched and dynamic as income disparity? Since there is not, what is wrong with citing an expert that says the Bush Tax Cuts contributed to the increase in income disparity from the date that those tax cuts were indeed passed. Not claiming to be an expert on income disparity but I believe based on common sense that the BTCs were one of the primary causes of the Increase in income disparity that occurred since they were passed. But they are still not the only primary cause. It is still not merely a secondary cause in my opinion.

My point is the BTCs contributed in a major way to the income disparity problem. Income disparity is a moving train and the BTCs were passed to slow it down. The BTCs sped it up to a dangerous speed in my view.

Only a small part of my primary argument relies on the fact that the BTCs contributed to an increase in income disparity, if it relies on it at all. Whether they were a primary or secondary or minor contribution to it does not refute my argument on this thread.

Obama did better on jobs recovery than what Romney pledged to do in his bid for the Presidency in 2012., Just a fact. Obama did better in two years than what Romney said woul take him four.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is a lie. I started with 'primary causes' - stayed with 'primary causes' - and am still with 'primary causes' .

People much smarter than me can say the Bush tax cuts contributed to widening income equality.

Can't you read?

No. I wrote the Bush tax cuts were one of the primary causes of income disparity. As one of the primary causes of income disparity it surely contributed to it. Why do you think it doesn't?

"One of" many a nit-picker you are. You might be the primary one though.

Is there a limit of only "one" primary cause of something as complex and entrenched and dynamic as income disparity? Since there is not, what is wrong with citing an expert that says the Bush Tax Cuts contributed to the increase in income disparity from the date that those tax cuts were indeed passed. Not claiming to be an expert on income disparity but I believe based on common sense that the BTCs were one of the primary causes of the Increase in income disparity that occurred since they were passed. But they are still not the only primary cause. It is still not merely a secondary cause in my opinion.

My point is the BTCs contributed in a major way to the income disparity problem. Income disparity is a moving train and the BTCs were passed to slow it down. The BTCs sped it up to a dangerous speed in my view.

Only a small part of my primary argument relies on the fact that the BTCs contributed to an increase in income disparity, if it relies on it at all. Whether they were a primary or secondary or minor contribution to it does not refute my argument on this thread.

Obama did better on jobs recovery than what Romney pledged to do in his bid for the Presidency in 2012., Just a fact. Obama did better in two years than what Romney said woul take him four.

Yeah, I need to learn to read. You're ignoring your own words, but I need to learn to read.

 

[Interpol]

Everything Gingrich, Ryan and Romney said they wanted by the end of 2016 has happened 2 years sooner under Obama.

At this point, the only variable that Hillary Clinton has to worry about is if the recovery peaks too soon. Personally, I feel we've only just begun to hit our stride again. Things will really get going if we can help to stimulate more investment in the engineers of the future who will be peddling things that the Chinese are beginning to invest in, namely green technology. They're literally sick and tired of living in their filthy house and are committed to putting their resources into making alternative energy make business sense.

If we can invest right and pass a big infrastructure bill at the same time, we'll enter another 30 year post-WWII type period of prosperity and growth.

Left or right, whichever President gets those two things going will be applauded by me because it's the logical next step we have to take.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SW 10523602

You're ignoring your own words, but I need to learn to read.

I'm not ignoring my own words. You have misquoted me in your nit-pickin' diversion. The concept of plural and singular is apparently over your head.

Itpl 10523834

Everything Gingrich, Ryan and Romney said they wanted by the end of 2016 has happened 2 years sooner under Obama.

Do you think that is incorrect SwimExpert?

 

[SwimExpert]

You have misquoted me in your nit-pickin' diversion.

Yep. Quoting your exact words is misquoting you. Don't blame me for what you said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yeah, I need to learn to read. You're ignoring your own words, but I need to learn to read.

You obviously didn't read the post to which you were responding.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SE 10524196

Quoting your exact words is misquoting you.

Trouble is, you didn't quote my exact words at the start of your superfluous attempt at diversion. If you prefer to focus upon errors of erudition and comprehension rather than focusing on the topic of the thread, why not help your fellow righties out?

RGS 10511618

Assuming that the real unemployment figure is 5.6 percent it took Obama 6 years to get there not 2

DT 10508888

Try six years, Foo.

Am I allowed to say the BTCs fueled income inequality. Or will you nitpick that fueled is a contribution and not a primary cause. Or do you need to keep your ridiculous antics going.

.
Here’s the legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts.

1. Drove the deficit : This chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows how the Bush tax cuts are likely to continue be a major driver of federal budget deficits 20 years after they were first passed. With Congress raising taxes on the wealthy on Tuesday, the effect on deficits will be somewhat less -- about $600 billion less than shown in this chart. Still, they will remain the largest component of deficits for the foreseeable future.

2. Fueled income inequality: This chart from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the Bush tax cuts, which significantly reduce top marginal tax rates and capital gains rates, helped widen income inequality in the 2000s. As the report says, “as the top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases — that is, income disparities increase.” This chart shows how the percentage of income flowing to the top 0.1 percent of earners increases as top tax rates decrease.

Fuel is a primary element in whatever it does.

 

[SwimExpert]

SE 10524196

Quoting your exact words is misquoting you.

Trouble is, you didn't quote my exact words at the start of your superfluous attempt at diversion. If you prefer to focus upon errors of erudition and comprehension rather than focusing on the topic of the thread, why not help your fellow righties out?

RGS 10511618

Assuming that the real unemployment figure is 5.6 percent it took Obama 6 years to get there not 2

DT 10508888

Try six years, Foo.

Am I allowed to say the BTCs fueled income inequality. Or will you nitpick that fueled is a contribution and not a primary cause. Or do you need to keep your ridiculous antics going.

.
Here’s the legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts.

1. Drove the deficit : This chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows how the Bush tax cuts are likely to continue be a major driver of federal budget deficits 20 years after they were first passed. With Congress raising taxes on the wealthy on Tuesday, the effect on deficits will be somewhat less -- about $600 billion less than shown in this chart. Still, they will remain the largest component of deficits for the foreseeable future.

2. Fueled income inequality: This chart from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the Bush tax cuts, which significantly reduce top marginal tax rates and capital gains rates, helped widen income inequality in the 2000s. As the report says, “as the top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases — that is, income disparities increase.” This chart shows how the percentage of income flowing to the top 0.1 percent of earners increases as top tax rates decrease.

Fuel is a primary element in whatever it does.

Stop, please.....my sides are killing me! It's always hilarious when some idiot hates the taste of their own words!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

10521398

Your argument started with "primary cause" and then shifted to "contributing factor" and back to "primary cause." You are using these as if they were interchangeable

Are you arguing that the Bush Tax Cuts are not one of many primary causes that contributed to higher federal deficits and increased income disparity?

Here's some more commentary on what helped cause increased income inequality since the most recent round of tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 & 2003.that were geared mostly toward the wealthiest of American families,

.
Income inequality driven by Bush tax cuts, capital gains ...
money.cnn.com/2012/01/03/news/economy/income_inequality/... Jan 04, 2012 · Income inequality has been driven by the Bush tax cuts and from increased income from capital gains and ...

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you arguing that the Bush Tax Cuts are not one of many primary causes that contributed to higher federal deficits and increased income disparity?

Now you're changing your story again, adding in the issue of deficits. You really can't keep yourself straight, can you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SE 10531716

Now you're changing your story again, adding in the issue of deficits. You really can't keep yourself straight, can you?

Still waiting for you to post an argument. The Federal deficit and debt were also increased by the Bush Tax Cuts. You can't deny Obama did better than Romney said he himself could do - so I'll talk about whatever I want until you think of a response other than diversion.

 

[rdean]

Republicans think the pioneer of outsourcing would have done a better job.

They have been right about so much. Iraq, the stock market, the Bush Tax Cuts.

Most people would be too ashamed to even show their faces after what the GOP has done. But they have no shame.

 

[SwimExpert]

SE 10531716

Now you're changing your story again, adding in the issue of deficits. You really can't keep yourself straight, can you?

Still waiting for you to post an argument. The Federal deficit and debt were also increased by the Bush Tax Cuts. You can't deny Obama did better than Romney said he himself could do - so I'll talk about whatever I want until you think of a response other than diversion.

*yawn*

Are you still talking?