Congress sucks...

[followsthewolf]

Quote
And the mome raths outgrabe."

I remember my old Poetry 101 professor reading us "Jabberwocky" in class one day and pronouncing the last word with a long "e" at the end: "out-grah-bee."

I felt violated. I was sure, just so sure, that the poem I first read in my aunt's old college English Lit textbook (found old and moldy in my granny's basement when I was but 14) had as its last word "out-grabe" -- rhyming with ... . Huh?

And that was the point. Other than Lewis Carroll's "portmanteau" rhyme in the poem ("wabe"), there isn't much that rhymes with "outgrabe," no matter how you pronounce it.

Carroll once explained, humorously, his concept of the famous "portmanteau" words used in his poem. But, like the piece of furniture they're named for, they can serve a variety of uses.

Last year, when I started this blog, I wrote about how George Boole discovered a flaw in classic Aristotelian logic -- called (I think) the "existential fallacy." In short, the terms of a syllogism do not need to exist for the syllogism to function. They can be abstract symbols, hence the name "symbolic logic."

Carroll (as math professor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was a researcher in Boolean algebra, nonlinear geometry and similar topics. He made significant contributions to the academic literature on symbolic logic. And "Jabberwocky" is his (I think, successful) attempt to put some of those basic concepts into language.

The "portmanteau" words in "Jabberwocky" don't mean anything. (I believe Carroll's own definitions of the words are knowingly tongue-in-cheek.) They are true "nonsense" words, in the sense that they have no sense at all. Nor do they need to have any for the poem to make sense. In a sense.

If we are to examine those "interstices" of language I spoke of back then in the post on Boole, I think we need to more fully understand Carroll's accomplishment in "Jabberwocky."

BTW, the poem is satire. Just what it ridicules is what's important.



So, did you write the above, willy?

[mr. willy]

So, did you write the above, willy?

Jai Arjun Singh
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Occupation: Journalist
Location: New Delhi : India

[followsthewolf]

And what does the poem ridicule?

[Exterminator]

THEN PROVE IT BEFORE YOU CALL IT A BULLSHIT LIE !!!! WHERE IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DATA TO DISPROVE IT !!!!!

POST IT OR SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!

Supply side economics are a myth propagated by the wealthy to make the ignorant believe that they will somehow benefit if the wealthy pay fewer taxes.  They intentionally skew the data by conveniently omitting things like CPI indexes and revenue as a percentage of GDP to make it appear as though tax cuts result in increased revenue when in real dollars they do not.  This is well documented and accessible to anyone who cares to do a little research.

Not that I believe you'll actually read any of it or that you are open minded enough to allow that you've been fed a line of crap, but here are just a few sources of information...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1018

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5976&type=0

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

[mr. willy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/

[Exterminator]

Tax cuts didn't work to increase revenues then either.

[Henry Hawk]

 

Ex, I have read and researched your sources...and they are...a liberal policy analysis group...so, naturally, they will spin tax cuts to benefit the liberal agenda, to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans....

http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/

here are some reasons that support a Conservatives train of thought regarding tax cuts vs. stimulus spending...and why tax cuts DO work....

again, to me it seems so very simple and realistic, for our economy to become strong again....we need to stimulate by spurring business' by cutting their taxes....at the least temporary...

[Bo D]

Ex, I have read and researched your sources...and they are...a liberal policy analysis group...so, naturally, they will spin tax cuts to benefit the liberal agenda, to increase the tax burden on hard working Americans....

http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Tax_Cuts_Work
http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/stimulus_spending_doesnt_work_-_tax_cuts_do/

here are some reasons that support a Conservatives train of thought regarding tax cuts vs. stimulus spending...and why tax cuts DO work....

again, to me it seems so very simple and realistic, for our economy to become strong again....we need to stimulate by spurring business' by cutting their taxes....at the least temporary...

Did you read these sources that he also provided?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5976&type=0

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

(Note the dates of the reports, just in case you try to say that they were prepared to support Obama.)

Excerpts ....

"the tax reduction would lower revenues by $466 billion over the first five years and $775 billion over the second five years. Including additional debt service adds about 25 percent to the total budgetary impact over the first 10 years" see Table 1 at the top of page 3.

"through 1990, corporate revenues are estimated to rise by $118.4 billion (24.4 percent), while individual revenues would fall by $131.8 billion (6 percent).1 Because of this apparent shift in taxation from individuals to corporations, apprehension has arisen that the new tax system would hurt capital formation and reduce the growth in the economy. "

[Locutus]

I was just getting ready to say that Olias.  I didn't know the Congressional Budget Office was a "liberal policy analysis group." 

[Exterminator]

I was just getting ready to say that Olias.  I didn't know the Congressional Budget Office was a "liberal policy analysis group."

Henry knows that and he has been provided this information more than once and continues to propagate this lie.  If as they suggest, lowering taxes increases revenue and raising them lowers it, how do they explain tax revenues increasing dramatically after taxes were increased in the 90's?  They won't because they can't...all they can do is continue to parrot the same smoke that got blown up their collective asses that has them all smiling blissfully while they're being bent over.

[mr. willy]

http://www.scientificblogging.com/gerhard_adam/blog/economic_theory_lower_taxes_raise_revenue

[Exterminator]

A blog entry does not supplant empirical data.

[Locutus]

A blog entry does not supplant empirical data.

You may have to define the word supplant for him. 

[Palehorse]

 

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm182.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010798

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html

I am not propagating any lies....there is a lot of facts and proof that tax cuts, stimulate the economy and generates MORE revenue to the federal government....

it is common logic....not trying to be a smart arse....there is several links that support this idea...