|
|
On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line?
Seriously pissing off two dictators in two of the worlds largest countries populationwise (and the economic sugardaddy for USA) is not a problem? China and Russia are not only anti-USA. They are anti-western and anti-destabilization no matter where and when because it could end up reminding their populations that they, themself are being oppressed.
|
On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote:
Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S.
Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal?
Sure, it is big, and quite profitable in the long run deal. What is the problem exactly?
They know what their goverment is doing, and what the consequences of it will be if other countries decide, they dislike that.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that.
You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons.
|
On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 16:46 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, it is to show exactly how responsible for the deficit they really are, in response to people saying Obama's policies are responsible for the deficit. And it does just that. The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit.
It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits.
|
On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons.
I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe.
Kinda like the Cuba missle crisis. SU moves in their nukes, and negotiates, that they will remove them, if US will remove their nukes from Turkey.
Voila, SU get`s a huge gain, despite "having" to remove it`s nukes from Cuba and "back dowm".
|
On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 00:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The numbers don't add up. You can't ignore 2/3 of the cause of the deficit under Bush's term and still have a graph that adds up to 100% of the deficit. Something is wrong!! The numbers are clearly being manipulated. At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits.
Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers.
Got it.
|
On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 07:44 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
At this point I don't know if you're trolling or serious. The deficit/surplus = revenue minus spending. The article looks at the most costly POLICIES. They are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. Please explain to me what you are disputing here. Unless you can single out individual policies that are more costly than the wars and the Bush tax cuts within the remaining 2/3, you are not disputing the content of the article. Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it.
It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manner, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits.
|
On September 01 2012 09:33 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote:
Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S.
Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? Sure, it is big, and quite profitable in the long run deal. What is the problem exactly? They know what their goverment is doing, and what the consequences of it will be if other countries decide, they dislike that.
I don't think that Iranians deserve to die because of the actions of a government whose decisions they have little say in and whose actions are primarily a response to an absurdly hostile U.S. stance towards them. You do. I don't think there's much more to say about our disagreement other than that your stance leaves me nauseated.
@Souma, Defacer. I don't believe that the aggressive stance of the U.S. is primarily motivated by or likely to engender the safety of U.S. citizens. We create terrorists every day with our actions in the middle east and invasion or bombing of Iran will only accelerate that trend. That's why I don't think that the course we're on, which you both admit is absurdly costly towards the Iranian people, is necessary.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe.
There could possibly be a trade if the situation does not completely favor us and we decide to act, but as it is, if the situation escalates and the world sees that we have no choice, the Russians and Chinese would be forced to step back or go against the rest of the world. It's all about leverage, something we don't have enough of at the moment, but can possibly acquire.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:43 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:33 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote:
Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S.
Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? Sure, it is big, and quite profitable in the long run deal. What is the problem exactly? They know what their goverment is doing, and what the consequences of it will be if other countries decide, they dislike that. I don't think that Iranians deserve to die because of the actions of a government whose decisions they have little say in and whose actions are primarily a response to an absurdly hostile U.S. stance towards them. You do. I don't think there's much more to say about our disagreement other than that your stance leaves me nauseated.
If the choice is between the sacrifice of Iranian lives or a nuclearized Iran, you would be hard-pressed to find people who would support the latter over the former. Once again Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism in the world, and such a nation absolutely cannot be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
It's also possible that public opinion may heavily turn against the government and they'll be forced to cease all nuclear projects when the threat of eminent action is looming over their heads.
|
On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Increasing discretionary spending is a policy. It doesn't have a catchy name like "Bush tax cuts" but it is still a policy. Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits.
It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts.
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise.
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context.
|
On September 01 2012 09:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe. There could possibly be a trade if the situation does not completely favor us and we decide to act, but as it is, if the situation escalates and the world sees that we have no choice, the Russians and Chinese would be forced to step back or go against the rest of the world. It's all about leverage, something we don't have enough of at the moment, but can possibly acquire.
Well, there is a big difference, when Russians sit on their ass and do nothing, the Irak-war style, or disagree, and lounch the support of the country US will be peswading by force, like the Vietnam.
So, in US`s best interests, is to get the former, not the later.
On September 01 2012 09:46 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:43 frogrubdown wrote:On September 01 2012 09:33 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:25 frogrubdown wrote:
Oh good, a conversation about what the "big deal" is with bombing Iran in which all the participants tacitly assume that an outcome is only a big deal if it harms the U.S.
Ever consider the possibility that killing who-knows-how-many Iranians both directly and through crippling their economy and infrastructure is itself a big deal? Sure, it is big, and quite profitable in the long run deal. What is the problem exactly? They know what their goverment is doing, and what the consequences of it will be if other countries decide, they dislike that. I don't think that Iranians deserve to die because of the actions of a government whose decisions they have little say in and whose actions are primarily a response to an absurdly hostile U.S. stance towards them. You do. I don't think there's much more to say about our disagreement other than that your stance leaves me nauseated. If the choice is between the sacrifice of Iranian lives or a nuclearized Iran, you would be hard-pressed to find people who would support the latter over the former. Once again Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism in the world, and such a nation absolutely cannot be allowed to own nuclear weapons. It's also possible that public opinion may heavily turn against the government and they'll be forced to cease all nuclear projects when the threat of eminent action is looming over their heads.
Exactly. It is not the "genocide iranans for kicks and giggles".
|
On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe.
From what I understand (not much) part of the issue Russia and China have with the concept of military action or a UN-backed no-fly zone in Syria is simply a question of precedence -- Where do you draw the line to justify foreign intervention? Is it the UN's job to get involved whenever there is violent protest or dissent in a country? Why Syria but not Burma? Which country gets to manage their own affairs, and which don't?
Of course, Russia and China have there own share of discontent in their respective countries. And while they know they have the benefit of being in 'the Big Boys club' (like the US, they're big and well-armed enough to start World War 3, which is why no one will just fuck with them), it not unfair for them to question what kind of precedent the UN would be setting.
|
On September 01 2012 09:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe. There could possibly be a trade if the situation does not completely favor us and we decide to act, but as it is, if the situation escalates and the world sees that we have no choice, the Russians and Chinese would be forced to step back or go against the rest of the world. It's all about leverage, something we don't have enough of at the moment, but can possibly acquire.
I agree with that assessment and bombing the country might be a necessity.
But you need to think about the overall consequences of bombing Iran. It doesn't have a strong opposition since the preachers started to squeeze out the western-friendly politicians about 2005 after having had a very moderate leader in Khatami. Sure the people has tried to stand up against the oppression but in Iran the army couldn't care less if some people want to get shot.
The lack of any opposition and a bombing of their country will almost for sure drive a further hatred towards the west into the people and make more jihadists jump out to find their way to the virgins.
|
On September 01 2012 09:54 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe. From what I understand (not much) part of the issue Russia and China have with the concept of military action or a UN-backed no-fly zone in Syria is simply a question of precedence -- Where do you draw the line to justify foreign intervention? Is it the UN's job to get involved whenever there is violent protest or dissent in a country? Why Syria but not Burma? Which country gets to manage their own affairs, and which don't? Of course, Russia and China have there own share of discontent in their respective countries. And while they know they have the benefit of being in 'the Big Boys club' (like the US, they're big and well-armed enough to start World War 3, which is why no one will just fuck with them), it not unfair for them to question what kind of precedent the UN would be setting.
Syria is an issue of other degree than Iran.
Syria is a Russian "ally", the idea that they will support an interention to depose a friendly regime, is funny.
Russia and China, both signed the UN nuclear programs, including limiting acces to weapons, so, for Iran, the issua and precedent is pretty simple. Do not mess with UN rules.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 01 2012 09:55 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:44 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:40 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:35 Souma wrote:On September 01 2012 09:28 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:19 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? I believe only China and Russia. If they sit on the sidelines when it comes to dealing with Syria and Iran, that's fine by me. But the last thing you want to do is have Russian and China sympathize with Iran. Which is why I found Romney's idiotic and unnecessary jabs at Russian and China so confounding. Are your really that desperate for votes that you would antagonize these countries for no reason? China is your biggest trading partner and they buy a shit ton of American products. Apple wouldn't exist without China. Even if you hate Putin, keep it to your fucking self. You might be the next president for fuck's sake. You're not just throwing red meat to your voters, the whole world is watching and they will remember when you talked shit about them. The thing is, US-Russia relations are have a very long history of ignoring words, and judjung actions. They couldn`t care less of what US politicans speak about during the elections. Just look at the cold war. Russia China and US are competitors. They are already allienated, to maximum, sustainable point. Putin, for example is runnung ~12 years of him being in power, on the image of Russia being a besiged fortress, by US and EU. Does anyone care? In politics, words mean little. The question is, what would US have to trade for them to give up Iran. Simple as that. You seem to forget that China and Russia don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the rest of the world do. It is in everyone's best interests that this problem is solved peacefully. And if it can't, China and Russia could live with Iran's facilities being bombed (if they see we have no other choice) rather than a full-scale invasion if Iran gets too close to completing its production of nuclear weapons. I do not. Russia has it`s own interests in Syria and the region. They sure want to get rid of iran nukes, but they are not quite fine with US just moving in without consulting to them. And their apporval(at least in terms of not getting in the way), may cost US someting, for example giving up the idea of missle defences in eastern europe. There could possibly be a trade if the situation does not completely favor us and we decide to act, but as it is, if the situation escalates and the world sees that we have no choice, the Russians and Chinese would be forced to step back or go against the rest of the world. It's all about leverage, something we don't have enough of at the moment, but can possibly acquire. I agree with that assessment and bombing the country might be a necessity. But you need to think about the overall consequences of bombing Iran. It doesn't have a strong opposition since the preachers started to squeeze out the western-friendly politicians about 2005 after having had a very moderate leader in Khatami. Sure the people has tried to stand up against the oppression but in Iran the army couldn't care less if some people want to get shot. The lack of any opposition and a bombing of their country will almost for sure drive a further hatred towards the west into the people and make more jihadists jump out to find their way to the virgins.
Yeah I agree, the consequences would not be pretty, and may pan out to be worse than current predictions. It's why we aren't bombing them this second. No one knows what will happen when you mess with terrorists.
But I don't know, with everything that's been going on in the Middle East/North Africa, I seem to have more faith/hope in their citizens.
|
On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:14 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Discretionary spending covers a wide range of diverse policies/appropriations/spending. It's not a single policy. So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated. They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts.
"Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001."
On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise.
No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit.
On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context.
The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing.
|
On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
So? "Bush tax cuts" is an amalgamation of multiple policies as well. Same with "Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
It is also pretty dumb to ignore the effect of many small policies when they can be easily amalgamated.
They also unfairly score the Bush tax cuts and ARRA. The ARRA contains ongoing AMT relief yet the CBPP chose to remove it from the ARRA and include it into the Bush tax cuts even though AMT relief has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. They also chose to post a graph that assumed continued extension of the Bush tax cuts while assuming that temporary ARRA tax cuts would be allowed to expire. The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing.
AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts.
Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.
They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state:
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
You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that?
What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced.
|
On September 01 2012 09:32 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 09:11 naastyOne wrote:On September 01 2012 09:03 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 08:45 Romantic wrote:
Edit: Ironically, bombing them to end the program might be the exact political spark they need to justify building nuclear weapons for self defense. It's very important that the US preserves and protects it's moral authority, in the event that a war against Iran is necessary. A war against Iran would be very costly, and would likely spread. Part of retaining this moral authority is exploring every other avenue to undermine their nuclear program, including trade sanctions, covert operations, sabotage and yes, diplomacy -- even if it's just for show. That way, if a war is inevitable, the US will have the support of dozens of strong allies. This is why Romney's cheap, drum-beating rhetoric in the campaign is so irresponsible. All it does is galvanize the US's enemies, alienate more methodical and gunshy allies, and gives Iran the opportunity to build sympathy and say, "See, see! They hate us and our religion!" Obama's method of slow-playing the US's hand is the right strategy. It turns the rest of the world against Iran, by saying, "We've been as reasonable as possible and they're still a threat to Israel and the US. Now let's all get together and kick their ass." What are the allies that will not support US after EU also went with sanctions? China and Russia will not support the actions of US, since they are the actions of US, period. Who else is left in the line? Seriously pissing off two dictators in two of the worlds largest countries populationwise (and the economic sugardaddy for USA) is not a problem? China and Russia are not only anti-USA. They are anti-western and anti-destabilization no matter where and when because it could end up reminding their populations that they, themself are being oppressed.
Uh... no. China is not repressed save for some lack of human rights (though none of the basic ones) which the government uses to protect its power. That's obvious not good by western standards but calling it oppression is just wrong considering China has a huge emerging middle class and is general quite content right now. Also China backs Syria for national interest reasons. Just like the west turned an oppressed but, critically, stable country into an ethic slaughterfield under a pretext that wasn't even true for national interest reasons.
|
On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 08:42 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
The phrase "the Bush tax cuts" refers to two acts. Two. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq refer to the policies of intervening militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq and what followed. That you're trying to pass off these policies as similar amalgamations as "discretionary spending" is, frankly laughable. What's next, "spending"? The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief. As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well. It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Show nested quote +Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT.
I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001.
On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: Show nested quote +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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced.
paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly shows how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that originated under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
