Pots and kettles, gooses and ganders.
I’ll acknowledge that The Daily Show’s audience is left of center, but I don’t see them cheering every boneheaded statement that one of their own makes. If H. Clinton were to make such a statement in an effort to claim that her husband did a great job in the fight against terrorism on his watch, I suspect you’d hear the same audience grumbling that O’Reilly got. On the other hand, if she were making the point that if the Bush people can tout such a bogus claim of success against terrorism because there have been no attacks in three years, then surely the Clinton administration can claim nearly three times that success because there were no attacks during their eight years. In that case you might get cheers, because it’s such a bullshit argument.
What does that have to do with anything? Have you seen them on the Daily Show? I don’t recall Kerry being booed or met with icy silence.
If you honestly believe that’s the case then I can see where you are coming from, I just disagree that she would get the audience grumbling. Nothing we can do to resolve this other than force Hillary to appear and make such a statement.
Anyone have her telephone number? 
What, they’d grumble at her for telling the truth?
On a related note, Hillary appeared on Fox News for the first time ever a few months back, and — in an aboslutely amazing display of ambassadorship — charmed the pants off everyone there. By the end of the show (Fox News Sunday), she had Lindsay Graham fawning all over her and Chris Wallace begging her to come back. She was brilliantly manipulative.
Hannity is there to make Baba O’, I mean, Bill O’ Reilly, look good.
Bill O does at times seem lucid at times.
Bill was right in that Americam soil wasn’t attack, but Jon should have pointed out that the people were booing because, at this rate, around the world, just about every date on the calendar will be commemorated for a massive terrorist attack just like 9-11 and 3-11 is.
Um, well the extent to which people adjust, say, their hours of work in response to tax rates is an empirical matter, a matter of observation.
In theory, there are 2 effects: 1) Lowering the returns of work encourages people to shift to some sort of activity that isn’t taxed, such as leisure. This could mean retiring early or taking less overtime. (This is “the substitution effect” for you economics fans).
- Lowering taxes also leaves people with higher income: richer people spend more on various amenities including leisure. That is, those with more in the bank may decide to take early retirement or work less overtime if they can. This is called, “the income effect”.
The 2 effects work in opposite directions. The substitution effect leads the lesser-taxed to work more. The income effect leads them to work less.
Which effect is larger?
This is an empirical matter. One that has received a fair amount of attention.
Taking Table 2.4 from Hamermesh’s The Economics of Work and Pay (which is based upon Killingsworth (1983)), the effects basically wash out for men, according to a range of studies.
For women, particularly married women, it’s a different matter. The income effects are similar to men’s, but the substitution effects are much stronger. For women, a one percent increase in after-tax income might lead to an increase in hours worked of 0.45% to 1.35%. Lower taxes, fewer full-time housewives.
Still, I suspect the economy-wide effects of this are small, although I must admit that I have never seen a back-of-the envelope calculation of this.
Nonetheless, Hamermesh summarizes: “It is a fairly safe conclusion that, within the range of taxes in effect in most Western countries, lower tax rates do not lead to large increases in labor supply and do not greatly increase total production.”
(The only decent justification I’ve seen for the Reagan tax cuts that is both empirical and supply-side involves savings behavior and inflation in excess of 5%. But that’s for another post.)
Precisely. And that’s what O’Reilly did with regard to Kerry.
Sorry Lib - gonna have to disagree with you on this one, buddy. You’re putting quite a bit of spin on O’Reilly’s point to try to make it sound reasonable. It just plain wasn’t.
Way to miss the point. :rolleyes:
Let me ask you a question, Lib: Did you really think the point I was making had to do with the nuances of how much regulation you favor? Did it really elude you that I just threw that out as an example to illustrate the larger point that it’s silly to call someone “stubborn” just because he happens to disagree with you, or are you just trying to obfuscate?
No, it isn’t.
From where I sit, it is you who is spinning.
I can do two of those. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What the…? Nuance, elusion, obfuscation…? You know, if this weren’t, oh, Cafe Society where we all pretty much get to state our opinions and go on about our business, I would pause to engage whatever it is that you’re pouting about. But as Phil Connors said famously to Ned Ryerson in Groundhog Day, I’m not going to.
Fair enough. I’m just saying that Kerry’s position is unexceptional, and backed by empirical evidence.
Separately, I don’t see what it has to do with a refusal to admit mistakes. The comparison seems weird.
Fabulous comeback.
I thought it was clear, Lib. I was miffed because you completely missed my point and went off on a silly tangent related to a very minor facet of my analogy that had nothing to do with what I was saying. I think you like to argue just for the sake of argument. If it bugs you to get into such ridiculous contests in Cafe Society, QUIT STARTING THEM, for crying out loud.
Okay, I see. Well, no need to be miffed. It quite often happens that I have opinions of my own and things I want to say myself — irrespective of what you might think or what you might have said. That is, I do not feel bound by whatever parameters you have set for the discussion. Don’t take it that I’ve missed your point just because I have a unilateral point of my own.
Whatever. :rolleyes: