Economic Argument for Austerity Based on Excel Error?

[Razgovory]

I guess that means we're done.

Nah, I had to do that.  Languish tradition.  Seriously though, you are trying to find some inconsistency and I'm not seeing it.  The US has reduced deficit spending by not doing what the deficit hawks suggested and the countries that follow the hawks suggestions failed actually reduce deficit in addition to the pain of spending cuts.

[Razgovory]

So far that is the entirety of the responses you've made to my posts in this thread. I didn't say it was a pattern, I said all three of you are basically responding with standard bullshit personal attacks that you all know perfectly well are completely inaccurate. Which says a lot about the quality of your position, and a standard level of integrity for Raz, but a disappointing level for you.

I am not some kind of Paul Ryan/Tea Party dumbass, and you know it. I am, however, a fiscal conservative who is not buying into what YOU are selling. That doesn't put me in the radical right Grover Nordquist camp though.

The reason I responded in such a way is that your post wasn't just attacking a strawman;  it was a My Lai of strawmen.  There was no reasoning with that, so I didn't even bother.

Ahh, so the only possible way to respond to a post that doesn't agree with you is to make a personal attack and accuse me of being angry?

So in fact this is just you aping Raz, right?

Wait, what?  You keep insulting me and then complain about personal attacks?

[Neil]

I would say the 10% of GDP at its worst point of 2009 was unacceptable.  Fortunately, we're not at that point anymore.   
And we're seeing government spending per capita at the slowest rates since Eisenhower, which should make all you let's-go-back-to-the-50s types nice and happy.

Yeah, but you aren't willing to pay the taxes to support that kind of spending.

[Neil]

So far that is the entirety of the responses you've made to my posts in this thread. I didn't say it was a pattern, I said all three of you are basically responding with standard bullshit personal attacks that you all know perfectly well are completely inaccurate. Which says a lot about the quality of your position, and a standard level of integrity for Raz, but a disappointing level for you.

I am not some kind of Paul Ryan/Tea Party dumbass, and you know it. I am, however, a fiscal conservative who is not buying into what YOU are selling. That doesn't put me in the radical right Grover Nordquist camp though.

The reason I responded in such a way is that your post wasn't just attacking a strawman;  it was a My Lai of strawmen.  There was no reasoning with that, so I didn't even bother.

Ahh, so the only possible way to respond to a post that doesn't agree with you is to make a personal attack and accuse me of being angry?

So in fact this is just you aping Raz, right?

Wait, what?  You keep insulting me and then complain about personal attacks?

He's not insulting you.

[Admiral Yi]

Nah, I had to do that.  Languish tradition.  Seriously though, you are trying to find some inconsistency and I'm not seeing it.  The US has reduced deficit spending by not doing what the deficit hawks suggested and the countries that follow the hawks suggestions failed actually reduce deficit in addition to the pain of spending cuts.

Raz, I can't keep up with all this.  Do me a favor and state, as concisely as possible, what you're in favor of and what you're opposed to.

[CountDeMoney]

I would say the 10% of GDP at its worst point of 2009 was unacceptable.  Fortunately, we're not at that point anymore.   
And we're seeing government spending per capita at the slowest rates since Eisenhower, which should make all you let's-go-back-to-the-50s types nice and happy.

Yeah, but you aren't willing to pay the taxes to support that kind of spending.

Unlike many of my countrymen, I do not possess a psychotic aversion to the concept of taxes.

[Berkut]

I would say the 10% of GDP at its worst point of 2009 was unacceptable.  Fortunately, we're not at that point anymore.   
And we're seeing government spending per capita at the slowest rates since Eisenhower, which should make all you let's-go-back-to-the-50s types nice and happy.

Yeah, but you aren't willing to pay the taxes to support that kind of spending.

Unlike many of my countrymen, I do not possess a psychotic aversion to the concept of taxes.

I have no problem with taxes. My issues with debt in fact are pretty much simply that I don't think we should be spending what we are not willing to tax, mostly.

I would have no problem with an across the board adjustment of taxes upwards.

[CountDeMoney]

You still haven't answered my question, so I'm going to have to ask Ideologue to treat you as a hostile witness with a 750-word review of Exorcist II: The Heretic.

[Berkut]

You still haven't answered my question, so I'm going to have to ask Ideologue to treat you as a hostile witness with a 750-word review of Exorcist II: The Heretic.

What was the question?

[CountDeMoney]

So please; what level of debt is acceptable to you?

[Neil]

I would say the 10% of GDP at its worst point of 2009 was unacceptable.  Fortunately, we're not at that point anymore.   
And we're seeing government spending per capita at the slowest rates since Eisenhower, which should make all you let's-go-back-to-the-50s types nice and happy.

Yeah, but you aren't willing to pay the taxes to support that kind of spending.

Unlike many of my countrymen, I do not possess a psychotic aversion to the concept of taxes.

So cut the feds a cheque then.  Do your part.

[CountDeMoney]

So cut the feds a cheque then.  Do your part.

They get theirs, don't worry.

[Ed Anger]

You still haven't answered my question, so I'm going to have to ask Ideologue to treat you as a hostile witness with a 750-word review of Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

[DGuller]

The reason I responded in such a way is that your post wasn't just attacking a strawman;  it was a My Lai of strawmen.  There was no reasoning with that, so I didn't even bother.

Ahh, so the only possible way to respond to a post that doesn't agree with you is to make a personal attack and accuse me of being angry?

So in fact this is just you aping Raz, right?

That's not what I said.  I didn't say that your post didn't agree with me, I just said that it was so riddled with strawmen that it did not indicate potential for a meaningful discussion.  It was just reeking of hysterics that we know so well and love in your posts.   

In any case, even if you managed to gather up your emotions and post a reasonable argument, I still wouldn't enter into an argument with you, simply because I have no interest in this subject.  It's been argued to death by now.  I just wouldn't post anything at all, instead of posting a drive-by mocking post that I did.

[Razgovory]

Nah, I had to do that.  Languish tradition.  Seriously though, you are trying to find some inconsistency and I'm not seeing it.  The US has reduced deficit spending by not doing what the deficit hawks suggested and the countries that follow the hawks suggestions failed actually reduce deficit in addition to the pain of spending cuts.

Raz, I can't keep up with all this.  Do me a favor and state, as concisely as possible, what you're in favor of and what you're opposed to.

'

I think we found our problem.  I was never talking about myself, and the topic was not about things I support i.e. austerity.