Why are liberals incapable of rational debate?

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by saganista

The thread itself is an ad hominem attack on a group.

No, it is a question

Oh, I have access alright...I just don't BUY any of it, something that puts a very broad gap between me and a whole gaggle of right-wingers.

Then why use the words members only or gated community when very few people from either party live in those conditions?

If you are refering to studies of the effects of the JFK tax cuts in the early 1960's that do suggest a delayed and minor positive effect on federal revenues while conceding that this is the only known instance of the effect, I would have no problem. The claim by the typical right-winger however is that tax cuts automatically increase federal revenues -- that the Reagan tax cuts did so, and that the Bushie tax cuts did so. This is malarkey.

If you are suggesting on the other hand that some sort of Laffer Curve-based analysis should be undertaken here, that too is malarkey through and through.

I am referring to neither. I am referring to your statement that anyone who says tax decreases will decrease revenue are liars. Reasonable people believe that the laffer curve is not malarkey and some believe that the Regan tax cuts increased revenue. There are some that simply believe that increaseing tax rates from 50 to 100 % would decrease revenues becasue it would kill the economy. Whether they are right or wrong is debateable but one thing is clear - They are not all liars. I dont mind getting into raional debates on this issue, but the question on this thread is again being raised when you make such attacks.

The general idea is that federal revenues from all sources should at least come close to matching government expenditures for all purposes, such that the country does not have to run huge serial deficits as it has done for the past eight years. It is not necessary to maximize revenues, only to keep them in line with expenditures. Equity concerns involved in potential rate structures that would collect the amounts needed are a separate matter, one in which the elements of marginal utility theory will come importantly into play.

LOL you really want me to believe that if either party had excess revenues, they wouldn't spend it? They want to maximize revenue and then prioritize where to spend it. They cant even do that.

The marginal utility theory is an argument for which tax rates are more fair, but it ignores the aspect that you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish and everyone suffers. In the long term, efficiency trumps fairness.

There is no evidence that we are anywhere near such a rate.

Rational people debate on where that point is. I think it is around 45% (including all state and local taxes for each individual) Where do you think it is?

What degree of truth would you see in a statement that either tax cuts or tax rate cuts increase federal revenues? I've been through this before. I don't feel a need to set out the arguments against such a claim every time I make a passing reference to it.

I was responding to your post that everyone who says it is a liar. I could even agree with you that a tax rate increase today might increase revenue, but calling anyone mentions the concept a liar is harmful to your cause because it shows a lack of capacity to understand the other side of the issue.

Actually, you used the word "reaffirmed"...as in reaffirmed by looking at the tax returns of the presidential tickets, as if these four tax returns would comprise additional evidence in support of Brooks' questionable conclusions. If you now say that this was a poor choice of words on your part, I would agree. There is nothing ad hominem however about discrediting the post as it originally appeared.

I agree to change the word to exemplified. Your ad hominem attack comes from the fact that you didn't discredit the post logically but rather labeled it as hollow partisan chirping from the Peanut Gallery

It is a study that the right tries to trump up despite its flaws because they have so little else to cling to. Their stewardship over the past eight years has been a complete disaster. Their much-touted domestic and foreign policies all lie in tatters. More than nine out of ten Americans think that this country has been put on the wrong track. Touting the Brooks book at this point is little more than a vain and desperate attempt to award some sort of feel-good consolation prize to the right-wing faithful whose faith has been so utterly betrayed.

Um ....I was talking about the lack of charity by the top 2 on the democratic ticket - not the study. Smart of you to try to change the subject. I would be embarrassed if they were the leaders of my party too.

[GregW]

I am a liberal and I, and a few others, think I can debate my positions in a rational manner. I do not just spout off a prepared response. For an example read my posts on socialism and my posts on the individual right to be armed. I explain my positions as well as I can even though some are misunderstood. I have read a lot of pure vitriol (acid) on these posts and most of it seems to be coming from the right.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Bagz

No, it is a question.

So is Have you stopped beating your wife?

Originally Posted by Bagz

Then why use the words members only or gated community when very few people from either party live in those conditions?

So as to refer to the exclusive nature of the propaganda preserves from which too many take all that they believe. Riff-raff such as facts, figures, and legitimate analysis are viewed as undesirables in that neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Bagz

I am referring to neither. I am referring to your statement that anyone who says tax decreases will decrease (sic) revenue are liars. Reasonable people believe that the laffer curve is not malarkey and some believe that the Regan tax cuts increased revenue. There are some that simply believe that increaseing tax rates from 50 to 100 % would decrease revenues becasue it would kill the economy. Whether they are right or wrong is debateable but one thing is clear - They are not all liars. I dont mind getting into raional debates on this issue, but the question on this thread is again being raised when you make such attacks.

No one calls for a tax rate of 100%. No one doubts either that credulous people can be convinced to believe stupid things. The issue is that the claim in question is patently false. There is no serious economist that believes such a thing. None. Here are a few words on the matter from a bunch of whacko liberal economists, all of whom happen to be current or past officials within the Bush administration...

Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.

Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist...
Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.

Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.

Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Originally Posted by Bagz

LOL you really want me to believe that if either party had excess revenues, they wouldn't spend it? They want to maximize revenue and then prioritize where to spend it. They cant even do that.

The idea is to be where we were in 2000. It took a decade-long bipartisan effort to get us to that point out of the oceans of red ink that the Reagan administration had produced. Bushie undid it all in three years...with myopic right-wingers cheering him on the whole way. What is the good that you imagine to have come from it?

Originally Posted by Bagz

The marginal utility theory is an argument for which tax rates are more fair, but it ignores the aspect that you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish and everyone suffers. In the long term, efficiency trumps fairness.

Marginal utility theory explains the fact that the value of an additional unit of something depends on how many units you already have, or in the case of taxes, would have left over. A tax of either 10% or $10,000 means one thing to a person who makes $45,000 per year, and something completely different to a person who makes $4,500,000 per year. Diminishing marginal utility curves are what account for that difference. As for your incentive homily, if I provide a reward by raising your base wage to $1,000 per hour, should I expect that you would end up working more hours of overtime or fewer?

Originally Posted by Bagz

Rational people debate on where that point is. I think it is around 45% (including all state and local taxes for each individual) Where do you think it is?

No one knows where it is, but it is well north of anything currently in effect. I'm personally in the top 1% and face a marginal rate that is higher than your 45%, and I can simply brush taxes aside, even though the federal bill alone is significantly more than median household income and has been for many years. All these taxes do is vaguely diminish the size of the pile of leftover money that I need to figure out something to do with each year. There is no one as well or better off than I am who is in any different sort of situation. In the mid-1990's, the top 1% paid an average of about 27 cents per dollar of AGI in federal income taxes. Today, it's sunk to about 21 cents, better than a 20% reduction. In the mid-1990's, everyone in the top 1% had an AGI at least $250K. Today, it's approaching $500K. Double the income with a 20% cut in effective taxes on that income? There's more than adequate room to make a U-turn here without destroying incentives.

Originally Posted by Bagz

I was responding to your post that everyone who says it is a liar. I could even agree with you that a tax rate increase today might increase revenue, but calling anyone mentions the concept a liar is harmful to your cause because it shows a lack of capacity to understand the other side of the issue.

There is no other side of the issue. There is no issue. See the above. There is fact and there is propaganda. End of story.

Originally Posted by Bagz

I agree to change the word to exemplified. Your ad hominem attack comes from the fact that you didn't discredit the post logically but rather labeled it as hollow partisan chirping from the Peanut Gallery.

And that's all it was in it's original context. You've sought to clarify what you meant to say, but that doesn't alter what you had said at the time. The tax returns of one or two individuals have no "affirmative" relevance to Brooks' thesis at all.

Originally Posted by Bagz

Um ....I was talking about the lack of charity by the top 2 on the democratic ticket - not the study. Smart of you to try to change the subject. I would be embarrassed if they were the leaders of my party too.

There is no subject in your original post. A subject has to be assumed, and the only one that can be assumed in context is the thesis of Brooks' book. As for embarassment, my friends, I give you Sarah Palin and the dimwit who chose her. You betcha <wink>.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by saganista

So is Have you stopped beating your wife?

LOL so you think that since you got the last word you win? Exactly how does this response fit into rational debate? I will take your obvious misdirection is admission that you were wrong when you labeled the thread title as an ad hominem attack..... unless you think the question Have you stopped beating your wife is also an ad hominem attack.

So as to refer to the exclusive nature of the propaganda preserves from which too many take all that they believe. Riff-raff such as facts, figures, and legitimate analysis are viewed as undesirables in that neighborhood.

The only purpose that serves is to strengthen an ad hominem argument.... apparently the only type of argument you can make. Try making legitimate arguments on the issues using facts figures and legitimate analysis.

No one calls for a tax rate of 100%. No one doubts either that credulous people can be convinced to believe stupid things. The issue is that the claim in question is patently false.

No the issue is whether or not the people you disagree with are liars. If they believe stupid things and repeat them, they are stupid - not liars. Just admit you were wrong and will change the word (as I did) or you will continue to make the point that you are not capable of rational debate - begging the question that titles the thread.

There is no serious economist that believes such a thing. None. Here are a few words on the matter from a bunch of whacko liberal economists, all of whom happen to be current or past officials within the Bush administration...

Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.

Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist...
Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.

Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.

Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Wow.. you avoided the question again. Your argument is that since you have a list of respected economists that say that tax cuts do not increase revenues, anyone who says that a tax rate cut might increase revenue is a liar. First of all, they are not a liar if they believe it to be true. Secondly having a list of people who claim it to be the case at current levels doesn't mean that we could never get to a level where a tax increase decreases revenue. No one is suggesting a 100% tax for exactly that reason. So the question still remains unanswered (as do all good questions put to you) At what point is this the case?

I would love to get into the actual issue with you, but that is another thread. The point of this thread you are making for me very well. When you do start the new thread getting into the actual issue, please provide links so we can see these quotes in context.

The idea is to be where we were in 2000. It took a decade-long bipartisan effort to get us to that point out of the oceans of red ink that the Reagan administration had produced. Bushie undid it all in three years...with myopic right-wingers cheering him on the whole way. What is the good that you imagine to have come from it?

Bush was a terrible administrator and it was a bipartisan effort of spending that he presided over. Do you really think the left in congress was doing whatever they could to reign in spending? Both parties spend too much but it is a ridiculous assertion that the left spends less than the right.

Marginal utility theory explains the fact that the value of an additional unit of something depends on how many units you already have, or in the case of taxes, would have left over. A tax of either 10% or $10,000 means one thing to a person who makes $45,000 per year, and something completely different to a person who makes $4,500,000 per year. Diminishing marginal utility curves are what account for that difference. As for your incentive homily, if I provide a reward by raising your base wage to $1,000 per hour, should I expect that you would end up working more hours of overtime or fewer?

I understand marginal utility theory just fine. When I said it was an issue of fairness, I meant that the lower income people would receive more utility for $1,000 than an upper income person. That is an argument for fairness. When using the marginal utility theory to describe incentives, you are making my point. In other words the most productive among us get less utility from additional production because they already have allot. So to incentivize them we should lower tax rates for them. To use your example: A person making $1000 per hour has been identified by the person who pays him as very productive. This is the exact type of person we should be incentivize to work as much as possible to benefit our whole society. To answer your question directly:He is going to work fewer hours unless you pay him more for the last number of hours to correlate with the marginal utility. This is the exact reason that higher tax rates in the higher income brackets are counter productive... The most productive among us will work less. Do you not understand how a progressive tax structure pays more for the first few hours worked and less for the last few? This is the exact opposite of maximizing productivity. Is this incentive for the most productive among us?

No one knows where it is, but it is well north of anything currently in effect. I'm personally in the top 1% and face a marginal rate that is higher than your 45%, and I can simply brush taxes aside, even though the federal bill alone is significantly more than median household income and has been for many years. All these taxes do is vaguely diminish the size of the pile of leftover money that I need to figure out something to do with each year. There is no one as well or better off than I am who is in any different sort of situation. In the mid-1990's, the top 1% paid an average of about 27 cents per dollar of AGI in federal income taxes. Today, it's sunk to about 21 cents, better than a 20% reduction. In the mid-1990's, everyone in the top 1% had an AGI at least $250K. Today, it's approaching $500K. Double the income with a 20% cut in effective taxes on that income? There's more than adequate room to make a U-turn here without destroying incentives.

I was not talking marginal rates with my estimate.. so you are at 21% I think that can be increased to about 45% (remember including all state and local) before it will have a negative effect. I was brave enough to come up with an estimate. "Well north of that" is an admission that there is such a point but not very brave.

There is no other side of the issue. There is no issue. See the above. There is fact and there is propaganda. End of story.

I guess when you cant dispute the arguments, you simply declare yourself a winner. The readers on this forum see through that. The only thing you prove above is that currently a bunch of economists agree that tax cuts decrease revenue at current levels. Ignoring the other side does not make the issue go away. These are the exact types of responses that beg the question that started this thread. Thank you for showing us example after example.

And that's all it was in it's original context. You've sought to clarify what you meant to say, but that doesn't alter what you had said at the time. The tax returns of one or two individuals have no "affirmative" relevance to Brooks' thesis at all.

We get it allready and that is why I agreed to change the word.

You are still on the original post and you don't disagree with the clarification. The point of rational debate is to get to the point where we agree or to figure out at which point we disagree. You seem intent in trying to discredit me so much that when we come to a point of agreement you want to go back to the original mistake that I agreed to change. I have changed my argument to make it rational. You have yet to do so with any of yours - even where someone points out the irrationality of them.

Notice that I had no problem admitting my mistake and sought to correct it. I also notice a lack of argument that your original response was an ad-hominem attack. This takes us back to the question that started the thread AGAIN!

There is no subject in your original post. A subject has to be assumed, and the only one that can be assumed in context is the thesis of Brooks' book. As for embarrassment, my friends, I give you Sarah Plain and the dimwit who chose her. You betcha <wink>.

You should really look up ad hominem because after so many times that it was pointed out that you still use it. Is that is your strongest debating tool? You do know that it is a fallacy don't you?

My original post is a continuation of a conversation so the subject is clear. But my last post clarified it for you... to no avail...you just tried to change the subject again.

[ELOrocks17]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

Excuse me, but you just had a thread of yours closed because it served only one purpose: to make fun of people. Please redirect your above claim where it now belongs.

Um...excuse me...i was responding DIRECTLY to the post above mine...thats why i quoted them when they said that ONLY repubs yell and complain---i told them otherwise.....besides who are you to tell me what i can and cannot post?

[zednemtheadventurer]

Originally Posted by Bagz

LOL so you think that since you got the last word you win? Exactly how does this response fit into rational debate? I will take your obvious misdirection is admission that you were wrong when you labeled the thread title as an ad hominem attack..... unless you think the question Have you stopped beating your wife is also an ad hominem attack. The only purpose that serves is to strengthen an ad hominem argument.... apparently the only type of argument you can make. Try making legitimate arguments on the issues using facts figures and legitimate analysis.
No the issue is whether or not the people you disagree with are liars. If they believe stupid things and repeat them, they are stupid - not liars. Just admit you were wrong and will change the word (as I did) or you will continue to make the point that you are not capable of rational debate - begging the question that titles the thread. Wow.. you avoided the question again. Your argument is that since you have a list of respected economists that say that tax cuts do not increase revenues, anyone who says that a tax rate cut might increase revenue is a liar. First of all, they are not a liar if they believe it to be true. Secondly having a list of people who claim it to be the case at current levels doesn't mean that we could never get to a level where a tax increase decreases revenue. No one is suggesting a 100% tax for exactly that reason. So the question still remains unanswered (as do all good questions put to you) At what point is this the case?

I would love to get into the actual issue with you, but that is another thread. The point of this thread you are making for me very well. When you do start the new thread getting into the actual issue, please provide links so we can see these quotes in context. Bush was a terrible administrator and it was a bipartisan effort of spending that he presided over. Do you really think the left in congress was doing whatever they could to reign in spending? Both parties spend too much but it is a ridiculous assertion that the left spends less than the right. I understand marginal utility theory just fine. When I said it was an issue of fairness, I meant that the lower income people would receive more utility for $1,000 than an upper income person. That is an argument for fairness. When using the marginal utility theory to describe incentives, you are making my point. In other words the most productive among us get less utility from additional production because they already have allot. So to incentivize them we should lower tax rates for them. To use your example: A person making $1000 per hour has been identified by the person who pays him as very productive. This is the exact type of person we should be incentivize to work as much as possible to benefit our whole society. To answer your question directly:He is going to work fewer hours unless you pay him more for the last number of hours to correlate with the marginal utility. This is the exact reason that higher tax rates in the higher income brackets are counter productive... The most productive among us will work less. Do you not understand how a progressive tax structure pays more for the first few hours worked and less for the last few? This is the exact opposite of maximizing productivity. Is this incentive for the most productive among us?I was not talking marginal rates with my estimate.. so you are at 21% I think that can be increased to about 45% (remember including all state and local) before it will have a negative effect. I was brave enough to come up with an estimate. "Well north of that" is an admission that there is such a point but not very brave.
I guess when you cant dispute the arguments, you simply declare yourself a winner. The readers on this forum see through that. The only thing you prove above is that currently a bunch of economists agree that tax cuts decrease revenue at current levels. Ignoring the other side does not make the issue go away. These are the exact types of responses that beg the question that started this thread. Thank you for showing us example after example. We get it allready and that is why I agreed to change the word.

You are still on the original post and you don't disagree with the clarification. The point of rational debate is to get to the point where we agree or to figure out at which point we disagree. You seem intent in trying to discredit me so much that when we come to a point of agreement you want to go back to the original mistake that I agreed to change. I have changed my argument to make it rational. You have yet to do so with any of yours - even where someone points out the irrationality of them.

Notice that I had no problem admitting my mistake and sought to correct it. I also notice a lack of argument that your original response was an ad-hominem attack. This takes us back to the question that started the thread AGAIN! You should really look up ad hominem because after so many times that it was pointed out that you still use it. Is that is your strongest debating tool? You do know that it is a fallacy don't you?

My original post is a continuation of a conversation so the subject is clear. But my last post clarified it for you... to no avail...you just tried to change the subject again.

WOW! This is getting entertaining!

I need some popcorn! This is great!

[ParkTwain]

As *saganista* has already posted, the premise of this message thread is an insult. But it betrays more about the OP than the subject matter at hand.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Bagz

Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah!

All the response your tirade deserves:

1. Your original point about candidate's tax returns was worthless. Hemming and hawing since haven't changed that fact.
2. Right-wingers as group appear to believe and regularly cite a specially created body of disinformation that lacks foundation in fact or logic.
3. A claim that tax cuts increase federal revenues is a Boolean claim. It is either true or false. There is no third state of being true because a number of people wrongly believe it to be true. There are no studies, no traces of evidence, and no qualified people suggesting that the statement is true. The statement is false. Owing to the falsehood of the statement, people who repeat it are liars.
4. The train-wreck of the past eight years is entirely the responsibility of Republicans. They ran the entire show on their own until 2007, when the American people wisely but too late put some Democratic brakes in place.
5. Tax policy is a matter of taking a target number of dollars from citizens, one dollar at a time. Marginal utility theory says you take each dollar in succession from the person expected to have the lowest utility for a dollar. This minimizes the total burden that taxes of a given amount will place upon society as a whole, and it will always result in a progressive rate structure.
6. All discussion of tax incentives is with respect to marginal rates. The marginal rate is the only rate that applies to decisions to work or not to work an addititional hour. That you claim not to have been talking about marginal rates suggests that you don't understand what you are talking about.
7. The thread title is an ad hominem in that it attacks the person of the opponent even before any opponent has put forward any argument.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by saganista

All the response your tirade deserves:uo

Calling it a tyrade is not a good example of logical debate. If there are errors in my logic, please point them out. Keep in mind the title of this thread because the readers are judging us on our ability to logically debate - more so than our ability to regurgitate talking points.[quote]

1. Your original point about candidate's tax returns was worthless. Hemming and hawing since haven't changed that fact. [/qoute] It would only be worthless if we were not talking about the leaders of your party.

The issue here is which one of us is debating logically. You have not refuted my claim that I have done exactly that[quote]
2. Right-wingers as group appear to believe and regularly cite a specially created body of disinformation that lacks foundation in fact or logic.[/qoute] I have pointed out that this is ad-hominem several times and rather than disputing that claim, you rephrased it. I posted the definition of ad hominem below for your benefit. [quote]
3. A claim that tax cuts increase federal revenues is a Boolean claim. It is either true or false. There is no third state of being true because a number of people wrongly believe it to be true. There are no studies, no traces of evidence, and no qualified people suggesting that the statement is true. The statement is false. Owing to the falsehood of the statement, people who repeat it are liars.[/qoute] True... as I admitted in the first post on this issue... then I brought up the distinction of tax rate cuts and that it is not boolean because it depends on the tax rate.You have yet to logically refute these arguments and the fact that you just restated the original claim that I have clearly addressed without response begs the original questoin of the thread.[quote]
4. The train-wreck of the past eight years is entirely the responsibility of Republicans. They ran the entire show on their own until 2007, when the American people wisely but too late put some Democratic brakes in place. [/qoute] This is the response to my assertion that the left spends more than the right. 1) It was impossible for the Republicans to eliminate the non-discretionary programs implemented by the left. 2) Had the Dems been in charge, the train wreck would have been even more disasterous because they spend more than the republicans.... not less.

When I say one party spends more than the other, saying the first party spent allot is not proof that the second spends less.
[quote]
5. Tax policy is a matter of taking a target number of dollars from citizens, one dollar at a time. Marginal utility theory says you take each dollar in succession from the person expected to have the lowest utility for a dollar. This minimizes the total burden that taxes of a given amount will place upon society as a whole, and it will always result in a progressive rate structure. [/qoute]The total burden is the same. To lower burden you have to lower the total taxes. If your goal is to extract the maximum tax in a static situation in the fairest way possible, this is arguably the way to go, but in a dynamic situation, punishing the most productive in society while rewarding the least productive will diminish overall wealth..... a point I have made numerous times without rebuttal from you. I have pointed out that this is the fatal flaw of socialism. Logical argument dictates that at the very least you shold reply to a point your adversary places such importance on.[quote]
6. All discussion of tax incentives is with respect to marginal rates. The marginal rate is the only rate that applies to decisions to work or not to work an addititional hour. That you claim not to have been talking about marginal rates suggests that you don't understand what you are talking about. [/qoute] I asked at what rate would overall revenues decrease and you went into a diatribe about how you are at 45% marginal and 21% overall, so I clarified that I meant overall and asked again what your number is and you responded with I don't know what I am talking about. This is exactly the type of discourse that brought up the question that titles this thread. For the fourth time...... What rate do you think revenues decrease... and I will let you choose whether you mean marginal or overall.

7. The thread title is an ad hominem in that it attacks the person of the opponent even before any opponent has put forward any argument.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

Exactly what argument or factual claim is being discredited by the QUESTION that titles this thread? Exactly what subject was the OP trying to change... considering that it was the FIRST POST.

My post was relevant to the thread in that it pointed out examples of the inability of you to argue logically. Instead of logically showing where my assertions that you are making illogical arguments are incorrect, you simply restated all of your conclusions without premises or arguments as if they were fact.

[Bagz]

Sorry about the quotes in the last post. Since I posted it yesterday I cant change it.