|
|
On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so.
|
On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so.
Like Paul Ryan said, Obama has been in office for 4 years, but he has yet to take responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch.
|
On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so.
Did you somehow forget what happened? The Democrats and the President wanted to end the tax cuts for the rich and keep the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. The Republicans refused to sign any legislation that did not include tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats and the President were therefore forced to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to safeguard the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor.
So yes, the Republicans are since the end of 2010 to blame for the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the rich.
On August 31 2012 06:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Like Paul Ryan said, Obama has been in office for 4 years, but he has yet to take responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch.
Yes, because Congress does not exist. And he's taken responsibility for everything he's done.
|
On August 31 2012 04:21 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 04:07 coverpunch wrote:On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote:
I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion:
Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care:
In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership:
I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage:
Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I have voted Republican in the past, although never for social reasons. But let me take a swing at some of this: 1. You put it harshly but only on one side. How about the other? Is it okay for a mother to kill her children? No, right? So then walk that back. Is it okay for her to strangle her newborn infant child? No. Is it okay for her to kill her child a day before it is born? No. A week? No. A month? No. At the extreme, you get to a point where it's not okay for her to kill the child at conception. I don't subscribe to the exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) at all so I won't try to justify that. But the point is that the child may also have a right to life and it is unfair for the mother to make that choice. 2. Health care is a multifaceted issue. It is simplistic to say universal health care is good. It IS good, in one dimension. But can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price? That is a much more difficult question, one that every OECD country is currently wrestling with. Millions of Americans don't have insurance, but ironically Obamacare treats them as free-loaders, not victims. They're pushed to buy insurance or pay a fine. Although Obamacare does address victims as well by banning companies from refusing to insure anyone who wants to buy. America's big problem is that we spend 4x more than anyone else on health care but Americans aren't far healthier than the rest of the world. Nobody knows how to fix it. 3. This is a difference of opinion from history. Americans regard individual gun ownership as a defense against tyranny and a fundamental right. Every other OECD country disagrees with that stance. Republicans make a big deal out of it because it fires up conservative voters and motivates them to vote. 4. Gay marriage is also not allowed in Germany. It's again a difference of opinion. The politics in the US is that individual states can grant gay marriage if they want and several states do. The problem with that is different states with different levels of recognition and benefits causes a discrimination lawsuit that can force states that don't want to recognize gay marriage to do so. But in summary, what you really seem to not like about the Republican Party is social conservatism. Lots of people don't like it but social conservatives are a very necessary part of maintaining power. They used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. What happened when they migrated to the right? Well, Democrats have only elected three presidents since (Carter, Clinton, Obama; the GOP has elected five), and we've had a conservative Supreme Court for 30+ years as a result. There's no way the Republicans are going to cast social conservatives out and eat the liberal agenda for a generation like that. About the healthcare issue, all of the developed countries except the U.S. have universal healthcare (as far as I know, they might be a couple exceptions) and they all pay far less and get atleast equal and arguably significantly better healthcare, I don't think any OECD country except the U.S. is still debating "can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price?" Think about it, the U.S. government doesn't even pay for the indirect healthcare services like checkups (whereas countries with universal healthcare do) yet they're spending so much more so where's all the money going? People who can't afford insurance often end up in the emergency room and in that case they still have to be treated at huge government expense whereas if they had preventative care it might've been altogether avoided. The government realizes this, but the American pay your own way spirit is just to strong they can't switch to the more efficient system.
It's not true that other countries have no debate and are happy with their systems. The UK had a debate about privatizing NHS last year although it seems the public does NOT want to change. But even Canada has questioned some aspects of the public health care system, although the Canadian public is also fairly decisive in insisting they want reform, not privatization.
Obviously, right now privatization is a big loser because we're living in the shadow of a financial crisis and now we all know what "risk" feels like. America's problems with a private insurance system are also well documented.
The problem you bring up is why Obamacare treats the uninsured as free-loaders and tries to make them buy insurance. The idea is that if everyone is insured, costs should go down because you don't have financing gaps that have to be carried by people who can pay.
|
On August 31 2012 06:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Did you somehow forget what happened? The Democrats and the President wanted to end the tax cuts for the rich and keep the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. The Republicans refused to sign any legislation that did not include tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats and the President were therefore forced to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to safeguard the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. So yes, the Republicans are since the end of 2010 to blame for the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the rich.
And yet, President Obama went on a speaking tour upon signing that bill that it would have been bad to not extend the tax cuts, for everybody.
Also, again, you can't seem to keep "blame" out of your head.
|
On August 31 2012 06:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Did you somehow forget what happened? The Democrats and the President wanted to end the tax cuts for the rich and keep the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. The Republicans refused to sign any legislation that did not include tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats and the President were therefore forced to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to safeguard the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. So yes, the Republicans are since the end of 2010 to blame for the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the rich. Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Like Paul Ryan said, Obama has been in office for 4 years, but he has yet to take responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch. Yes, because Congress does not exist. And he's taken responsibility for everything he's done.
Do I get $1 for every time he has blamed:
1) Bush,
2) Europe,
3) Congress
4) the weather ?
|
On August 31 2012 06:35 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:30 drwiggl3s wrote:On August 31 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2012 05:11 drwiggl3s wrote:
This is sort of random, but since you guys are talking about the deficit and etc. Since the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan really added to the deficit, it would have been really cool if large groups of organized citizens just stopped paying any income taxes (ie. tell your boss not to take it off your cheque, and than don't pay it when you file your taxes).
If it was a small group of people they'd for sure be punished. But imagine if you got entire universities, businesses, communities or what have you to just say we're not paying shit until you show you are actually going to reduce the deficit and stop _____ (whatever you're political hate is for). Kind of a new idea of protesting I guess.. except they can't pass you off as crazies/lazy no working hippies. What you are advocating (sufficient people protesting that the Gov loses the ability to enforce law) is called a revolution. They're generally pretty messy and they require a lot more discontent than currently exists in US society. At the moment the people who would benefit most from addressing the self perpetuating military industrial complex are joining the army because they have no prospects or working 100 hour weeks. It's more of a 'peaceful' protest, rather than a revolution isn't it? I mean, everyone still works. Shops. Lives a normal life. They just collectively agree to not pay their share of income taxes. No it's still a revolution. Once you demonstrate that the government has no real power if people refuse to acknowledge that power, that's a slippery slope. I severely doubt that what you propose could occur without harsh consequences from the government or further steps taken by the people.
Idk I don't really buy into most "slippery slope" arguments, and I don't think what I'm saying can be compared to an actual revolution. I think it would work and capture the governments attention pretty damn fast though. Also since it would be saving people money (at least in the short term) there would be a lot of people willing to get behind this. Especially if it was labeled as a 'peaceful protest' against over spending by the government.
But ya I can see how this wouldn't work though.. like one group stops paying in protest of gay marriage, and than others stop paying in protest of no gay marriage, etc.
Just a thought lol.
|
On August 31 2012 06:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Did you somehow forget what happened? The Democrats and the President wanted to end the tax cuts for the rich and keep the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. The Republicans refused to sign any legislation that did not include tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats and the President were therefore forced to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to safeguard the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. So yes, the Republicans are since the end of 2010 to blame for the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the rich. And yet, President Obama went on a speaking tour upon signing that bill that it would have been bad to not extend the tax cuts, for everybody.
Here's a video of President Obama calling the Republicans "hostage takers" because of their refusal to pass legislation only extending the Bush tax cuts for the poor & middle class and not the rich.
+ Show Spoiler +
Are you seriously claiming that he was in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? In that case what exactly do you think the debate was about?! Jesus Christ, talk about trying to re-write history.
On August 31 2012 06:53 Kaitlin wrote:
Also, again, you can't seem to keep "blame" out of your head.
You jumped in the middle of discussion between JonnyBNoHo and myself, and I was responding to a post where he used the word "blame" in saying that the Bush administration could not be "blamed" for the tax cuts since 2010. I answered by explaining who could now be blamed for the part of the tax cuts that I mentioned. If you open the dictionary, you'll see it's the correct use of the word. Or do you also have a problem with the English language, in addition to history and facts?
|
On August 31 2012 06:51 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 04:21 Feartheguru wrote:On August 31 2012 04:07 coverpunch wrote:On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote:
I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion:
Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care:
In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership:
I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage:
Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I have voted Republican in the past, although never for social reasons. But let me take a swing at some of this: 1. You put it harshly but only on one side. How about the other? Is it okay for a mother to kill her children? No, right? So then walk that back. Is it okay for her to strangle her newborn infant child? No. Is it okay for her to kill her child a day before it is born? No. A week? No. A month? No. At the extreme, you get to a point where it's not okay for her to kill the child at conception. I don't subscribe to the exceptions (rape, incest, health of mother) at all so I won't try to justify that. But the point is that the child may also have a right to life and it is unfair for the mother to make that choice. 2. Health care is a multifaceted issue. It is simplistic to say universal health care is good. It IS good, in one dimension. But can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price? That is a much more difficult question, one that every OECD country is currently wrestling with. Millions of Americans don't have insurance, but ironically Obamacare treats them as free-loaders, not victims. They're pushed to buy insurance or pay a fine. Although Obamacare does address victims as well by banning companies from refusing to insure anyone who wants to buy. America's big problem is that we spend 4x more than anyone else on health care but Americans aren't far healthier than the rest of the world. Nobody knows how to fix it. 3. This is a difference of opinion from history. Americans regard individual gun ownership as a defense against tyranny and a fundamental right. Every other OECD country disagrees with that stance. Republicans make a big deal out of it because it fires up conservative voters and motivates them to vote. 4. Gay marriage is also not allowed in Germany. It's again a difference of opinion. The politics in the US is that individual states can grant gay marriage if they want and several states do. The problem with that is different states with different levels of recognition and benefits causes a discrimination lawsuit that can force states that don't want to recognize gay marriage to do so. But in summary, what you really seem to not like about the Republican Party is social conservatism. Lots of people don't like it but social conservatives are a very necessary part of maintaining power. They used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. What happened when they migrated to the right? Well, Democrats have only elected three presidents since (Carter, Clinton, Obama; the GOP has elected five), and we've had a conservative Supreme Court for 30+ years as a result. There's no way the Republicans are going to cast social conservatives out and eat the liberal agenda for a generation like that. About the healthcare issue, all of the developed countries except the U.S. have universal healthcare (as far as I know, they might be a couple exceptions) and they all pay far less and get atleast equal and arguably significantly better healthcare, I don't think any OECD country except the U.S. is still debating "can universal health care deliver quality care at a cost-effective price?" Think about it, the U.S. government doesn't even pay for the indirect healthcare services like checkups (whereas countries with universal healthcare do) yet they're spending so much more so where's all the money going? People who can't afford insurance often end up in the emergency room and in that case they still have to be treated at huge government expense whereas if they had preventative care it might've been altogether avoided. The government realizes this, but the American pay your own way spirit is just to strong they can't switch to the more efficient system. It's not true that other countries have no debate and are happy with their systems. The UK had a debate about privatizing NHS last year although it seems the public does NOT want to change. But even Canada has questioned some aspects of the public health care system, although the Canadian public is also fairly decisively in insisting they want reform, not privatization. Obviously, right now privatization is a big loser because we're living in the shadow of a financial crisis and now we all know what "risk" feels like. America's problems with a private insurance system are also well documented.
Honestly, it's really hard to find a Canadian -- conservative or liberal -- that doesn't prefer our system over the US's. It's more cost effective and prices are regulated.
I feel sorry for Americans, because I don't think most of them realize how much price-gouging and inflation they're putting up with as consumers, or how many of them are getting exploited by healthcare providers that profit off of selling them prescriptions or diagnostic tests they don't need.
I do think there should be some solution or mechanism in Canada to facilitate premium, out-of-pocket care, for experimental or cutting edge treatment -- which the average person couldn't afford anyway -- but all in all, it provides all the healthcare the a Canadian would need, to everyone.
Personally, I dont' have a family doctor I can call at 3 in the morning, but the doctors I do see are great and charge me zero dollars. It's a good trade!
|
On August 31 2012 06:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Did you somehow forget what happened? The Democrats and the President wanted to end the tax cuts for the rich and keep the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. The Republicans refused to sign any legislation that did not include tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats and the President were therefore forced to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to safeguard the tax cuts for the middle class & the poor. So yes, the Republicans are since the end of 2010 to blame for the part of the Bush tax cuts that applies to the rich. On August 31 2012 06:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2012 06:44 Kaitlin wrote:On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Spoken like a true liberal. As long as you can place blame on the Republicans, it's not relevant that the President SIGNED the legislation to extend the tax law and also spoke publicly that it would be bad economic policy to not have done so. Like Paul Ryan said, Obama has been in office for 4 years, but he has yet to take responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch. Yes, because Congress does not exist. And he's taken responsibility for everything he's done. Do I get $1 for every time he has blamed: 1) Bush, 2) Europe, 3) Congress 4) the weather ?
I'd give you $1 for each time you've made a post without a strawman/false truths/fabrications/false talking points/fallacious attempts at discrediting the other side, but that wouldn't make you any richer.
|
On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 05:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 05:12 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 04:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 04:35 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That part of the graph is valid. Listing the Bush tax cuts and the wars is not. Most likely the economic downturn is underestimated in the graph. Why isn't valid to list them? I haven't looked at the numbers, but their negative impact could for example have been almost entirely compensated previously by the good economic situation. Meaning their negative impact would have been the same, but the positive factors made it so that the net deficit was below their value in absolute terms. Now, you're feeling their full impact with no positive economic factors to blunt it. (it's just a hypothesis, there could be other reasons, I just don't see why their place on the graph would necessarily be invalid) Because including them is as valid as including any bit of government spending or taxation that you do not like. The bush tax cuts and wars no more contributed to the increase in the deficit than any other portion of government spending and taxation (or lack thereof). It is just throwing something into the graph to throw something into the graph. No different than putting in social security or medicare or welfare spending or the EITC. It is completely arbitrary. Erm, I thought your question was how can the change be attributed to them, and my answer was that it could be that the change is not due to them but their impact is now fully felt. If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence. There's no reason why their impact wouldn't be fully felt until recently. If anything, the economic downturn would make the tax cuts less significant. The original source also says this: Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1). I don't see how you can explain the current spike in deficits on policies that have been in place for years prior to the spike. Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008. If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer. Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit. On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X. You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence." The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause. Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence". Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy. I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit. Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts. The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here. Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office! Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments, agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act, and Medicare Part D? It is just as arbitrary.
The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
|
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 05:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 05:12 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 04:50 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 04:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 04:35 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Why isn't valid to list them? I haven't looked at the numbers, but their negative impact could for example have been almost entirely compensated previously by the good economic situation. Meaning their negative impact would have been the same, but the positive factors made it so that the net deficit was below their value in absolute terms. Now, you're feeling their full impact with no positive economic factors to blunt it.
(it's just a hypothesis, there could be other reasons, I just don't see why their place on the graph would necessarily be invalid) Because including them is as valid as including any bit of government spending or taxation that you do not like. The bush tax cuts and wars no more contributed to the increase in the deficit than any other portion of government spending and taxation (or lack thereof). It is just throwing something into the graph to throw something into the graph. No different than putting in social security or medicare or welfare spending or the EITC. It is completely arbitrary. Erm, I thought your question was how can the change be attributed to them, and my answer was that it could be that the change is not due to them but their impact is now fully felt. If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence. There's no reason why their impact wouldn't be fully felt until recently. If anything, the economic downturn would make the tax cuts less significant. The original source also says this: Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1). I don't see how you can explain the current spike in deficits on policies that have been in place for years prior to the spike. Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008. If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer. Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit. On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X. You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence." The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause. Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence". On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy. I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit. On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts. The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here. On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office! Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010. Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments,
Not a policy.
agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act,
Not as big an impact.
and Medicare Part D?
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit. Show nested quote + If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. Heck just look at the title of the article: Show nested quote +Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
|
On August 31 2012 06:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 06:01 Trezeguet wrote:On August 31 2012 01:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:No, you disagree with politifact because of your partisan, fact-proof, stance. Fact checkers write opinion pieces under the guise of checking accuracy, they're worthless. They've been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans because they're full of shit. So how do you ever know what to trust if everything you read has at least some small bit of bias? How do you know anything is true if you learned it from a person who inherently has a bias? You are coming off like the people who get all erect from questioning experts since "what do they really know anyway!?" Read from a variety of sources and fact check the fact checkers yourself.
Yeah, but by your own logic, this won't help you get any closer to the truth. Additionally, if you are doing any fact checking, aren't you subject to confirmation bias?
|
Every election season I wish I was European, or just something other than American. The two-party system has turned into a competition to win votes from the masses, who are uneducated or refuse to apply their education and intellect in any meaningful way to the polcies of our day (most of which are so backward-thinking I can't believe we're still talking about, e.g. abortion). Sadly, the vast majority of people voting are unqualified to decide who should be running. These days, I can't help but think José Ortega y Gasset was right :/ This election decides not who should be the next president but who is the biggest loser.
TL.net seems to be the only place where, though tempers may run high, people actually debate meaningful issues in substantive ways.
Anybody with me?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I apologize but who's the lady speaking right now at the convention? I can't stop laughing.
|
LOL! the wait for the applause, aww that poor kid
|
On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote:
I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
|
On August 31 2012 08:51 homeless_guy wrote:
Every election season I wish I was European, or just something other than American. The two-party system has turned into a competition to win votes from the masses, who are uneducated or refuse to apply their education and intellect in any meaningful way to the polcies of our day (most of which are so backward-thinking I can't believe we're still talking about, e.g. abortion). Sadly, the vast majority of people voting are unqualified to decide who should be running. These days, I can't help but think José Ortega y Gasset was right :/ This election decides not who should be the next president but who is the biggest loser.
TL.net seems to be the only place where, though tempers may run high, people actually debate meaningful issues in substantive ways.
Anybody with me?
we debate but never really reach a resolution on anything, so its no different
|
"Bush kept us safe" ......except for that one time
i hate to be that guy but that line is reallllllllly bad
|
On August 31 2012 09:05 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote:
I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large. I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
The reason that elections are so close is tied in to the way americans seem to think about politics. Whole parts of the nation vote for 1 party because they have always voted for that party and not for the person or ideas at the time. The fact you can accurately predict the votes in the majority of states at any point in time shows this. There are only a few swing states that decide elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
