|
|
On September 07 2012 02:50 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab. Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.” ... With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .
Holy cow.
No wonder Boehner cries that often.
|
On September 07 2012 02:50 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab. Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.” ... With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .
I totally forgot about that.
|
On September 07 2012 02:48 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises. So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem. It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed.
The problem with Republican tax cuts is that they do the easy part (the tax cut) but neglect the hard part (spending cuts). Reagan's excuse was jacking military spending to fight to cold war, Bush's excuse was 9/11 - but they're junk excuses.
IMO the tax cuts are fine policies they just can't be expected to pay for themselves.
|
On September 07 2012 02:55 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 07 2012 00:14 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? I believe he's of the opinion that running up a deficit is borrowing money against ones children and that even though once they reach tax paying age and actually have to contribute towards repaying it it's still somehow child slavery. By the same logic it's also sperm slavery, egg slavery, foetus slavery and adult slavery. I'll throw him some moderation for being absurd. I don't know how anyone can make such an absurd leap of logic from government debt to child slavery. However, it is often said by Republicans that government debt is going to drown our children in a sea of debt. This is false. Most debt is money the US owes to itself. Only about 15% is owed to foreign countries (of which China is owed 8%). A majority is owed to Americans. And the rest is owed to companies, banks, and funds, many of which are also American. See: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/If the government, for example, increases welfare payments by $1 trillion, then that is added to the debt. That's $1 trillion in promises to both current and future generations. If we owe $1 trillion dollars to the next generation, how is that a burden on them? We're giving them money. And given that nearly all of US debt is owed to the US, the interest payments on the debt are also paid to the US. Sure, some people might not like the fact that we are choosing how some money is distributed on behalf of future generations, but that's a completely different argument (which they are not making). The fact is, it's by no means a burden, as nearly all US government debt remains within the US. Wow. Just wow. Hey kid, sure two-thirds of your paycheck is going to pay for stuff for someone else but it's a fellow American and we're all in this together so no big deal, right? Think of economic growth as upgrading a computer. If you have lots of debt you don't get growth. That means you can't add RAM or put in a SSD or get a new video card. The next generation gets the same old crappy computer with a CRT monitor playing games with everything set to the lowest settings.
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations.
If you promise to give yourself $1,000,000 over the next 10 years is that a burden on yourself? No. If you're going to attack debt, attack it for the right reasons. Saying it's a burden on future generations is completely wrong.
Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff?
|
On September 07 2012 03:04 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:48 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises. So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem. It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed. The Republican method and basics of Reaganomics is what helped the United States become the most successful, largest GDP nation in the history of man. The 20th century was a move away from those principals into massive money transfers. As I alluded to in a previous post, the true Republican way hasn't been tried in recent history because the agreed to spending cuts always get turned into spending increases.
No.
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TAcUwUiTiNI/AAAAAAAAAJU/C0dJtVpm-3o/s1600/Figure_1.bmp)
|
On September 07 2012 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:50 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab. Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.” ... With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 . I totally forgot about that.
I like how you guys seem to ignore the fact that on that specific issue, Obama was entirely right.
Here you go, lazy bones.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”
The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.
Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”
|
On September 07 2012 02:55 paralleluniverse wrote:
You've shown nothing. You claim that the costs of the Bush tax cuts and the wars are wrong.
Problem: - There has been trillion dollar deficits every year Obama has been President
Step one - Add up the total cost of the Middle East wars since they started
Step two - Add up the total "cost" of tax cuts since they started (which are probably based on static analysis which is stupidly flawed itself)
Step three - Add up Medicare Part D costs for the entire time of the program
Step four - Add up the previous three steps and claim they are the reason for trillion dollar deficits
Step five - Re-elect Obama
Step six - Don't profit
Bush created on net, virtually no jobs, and then left Obama with a blown up economy, Not only that, he blew up the deficit. Most of the increase in the deficit since Obama took office is because of the GFC. Had there been no GFC, no wars, and no Bush tax cuts, the budget would be balanced.
I like how everything that happens during Bush's terms is Bush's fault and then everything that happens during Obama's term is... Bush's fault. Bush gets blamed for 9/11 which was planned during Clinton's time after Clinton's failure to deal with Osama. Bush gets blamed for the accounting scandals that were revealed during his Presidency but occurred under Clinton. Bush gets blamed for Katrina when it was the Democratic Governor and Democratic Mayor who were the ones in charge and doing things like stopping the Red Cross and Salvation Army from going to New Orleans in the days after the storm. And Bush gets blamed for the financial crisis caused mostly by the end of the housing bubble which was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give home loans to people who couldn't afford them.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-clinton-recession.html
But Clinton gives good speech and he's oh so charming so let's blame it all on the guy who talks funny that we don't like.
|
On September 07 2012 01:39 paralleluniverse wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/E21-debt-chart.png) ]
If only our projections had been a little bit better, Increases Spending could have won the clear majority and avoided the run-off election!
|
On September 07 2012 03:42 dvorakftw wrote:If only our projections had been a little bit better, Increases Spending could have won the clear majority and avoided the run-off election!
Well, it's hard for economists to predict two wars, a financial meltdown and the impact of technology on retail and entertainment.
|
On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 02:55 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 01:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 07 2012 00:14 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? I believe he's of the opinion that running up a deficit is borrowing money against ones children and that even though once they reach tax paying age and actually have to contribute towards repaying it it's still somehow child slavery. By the same logic it's also sperm slavery, egg slavery, foetus slavery and adult slavery. I'll throw him some moderation for being absurd. I don't know how anyone can make such an absurd leap of logic from government debt to child slavery. However, it is often said by Republicans that government debt is going to drown our children in a sea of debt. This is false. Most debt is money the US owes to itself. Only about 15% is owed to foreign countries (of which China is owed 8%). A majority is owed to Americans. And the rest is owed to companies, banks, and funds, many of which are also American. See: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/If the government, for example, increases welfare payments by $1 trillion, then that is added to the debt. That's $1 trillion in promises to both current and future generations. If we owe $1 trillion dollars to the next generation, how is that a burden on them? We're giving them money. And given that nearly all of US debt is owed to the US, the interest payments on the debt are also paid to the US. Sure, some people might not like the fact that we are choosing how some money is distributed on behalf of future generations, but that's a completely different argument (which they are not making). The fact is, it's by no means a burden, as nearly all US government debt remains within the US. Wow. Just wow. Hey kid, sure two-thirds of your paycheck is going to pay for stuff for someone else but it's a fellow American and we're all in this together so no big deal, right? Think of economic growth as upgrading a computer. If you have lots of debt you don't get growth. That means you can't add RAM or put in a SSD or get a new video card. The next generation gets the same old crappy computer with a CRT monitor playing games with everything set to the lowest settings. Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations. If you promise to give yourself $1,000,000 over the next 10 years is that a burden on yourself? No. If you're going to attack debt, attack it for the right reasons. Saying it's a burden on future generations is completely wrong. Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff?
What if you can't make the payment? If you simply owe it to yourself my question is laughable. But in the real economy not being able to repay a debt has consequences -- often destructive ones.
Why was the fall in home prices a bad thing? People should have been glad - homes were on sale! Unfortunately the debt tied to those homes made the fall in home prices a problem. Rigid mortgage payments were not serviceable after people were laid off. Home values were not sufficient during foreclosure to cover loan principals. Because of this banks lost a ton of money and the resulting crisis was not pretty.
So yes, debt can be a problem for future generations because you are forcing them to agree to very rigid commitments. If those commitments cannot be made, then there will be destructive consequences. Sounds like a burden to me.
|
On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations.
Except it is because it steals economic growth. It's the reason my living room is bigger than most European apartments.
Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff?
I think Romney and Ryan have plans to avoid it while Obama is busy pointing fingers.
|
On September 07 2012 03:21 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 02:50 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship. But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab. Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.” ... With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 . I totally forgot about that. I like how you guys seem to ignore the fact that on that specific issue, Obama was entirely right. Here you go, lazy bones. Show nested quote +Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”
The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.
Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”
Property and sales taxes aren't federal taxes and Social Security and Medicare taxes are collected separately for a reason.
|
On September 07 2012 03:15 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:04 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 02:48 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 02:42 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Let's say you want to rob a home and murder the family and I don't so you say "Let's compromise and we rob the house and kill just the kids." And then I point out the last three times you said that you ended up killing everyone anyway. That's a lot like the situation. Go read about the Reagan illegal immigrant compromise and the Read My Lips No New Taxes compromises. So republicans dont want to raise taxes no matter what and stick their head in the sand, but democrats see raising taxes as a way to tackle the budget problem. It is a fundamental disagreement we will never get over. The republican method has been tried over and over again and never works. Reaganomics is/was a fraud and needs to be put to bed. The Republican method and basics of Reaganomics is what helped the United States become the most successful, largest GDP nation in the history of man. The 20th century was a move away from those principals into massive money transfers. As I alluded to in a previous post, the true Republican way hasn't been tried in recent history because the agreed to spending cuts always get turned into spending increases. No.
I can't puzzle out what your picture is supposed to mean. The United States went from tiny colonies the world's economic superpower with no or little taxes, rule of law and true respect for property rights and you have some infograph that starts with FDR? Okay. Whatever.
|
On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise.
Society has been on a trajectory towards greater Social Progress (liberalism and expanding central government) for many hundreds of years. There is no indiciation that the course will be reversed any time soon. The liberals have faced occasional momentary setbacks, but have generally won the confrontation on every major issue. All of their social programs are in place. That trajectory is mirrored in any chart that shows growth of the federal government. The conversation is never about whether or not to get rid of welfare, but whether to merely place a cap on it so that spending on it grows, but at not so high a rate. Think as a liberal--how would you view the last couple hundred years? Looks like things are generally headed in your direction. Think as a conservative--it's just been one loss after another. Why would a conservative participate in a discussion that merely slows the erosion of the society they deem to be ideal? Liberals can afford to make compromises because all they have to do is get their foot in the door with a program and then it's extremely difficult to get it taken away. Not only that but the existence of the Supreme Court (which generally backs them up) and rising participation in higher education ensures that society will continue to head down their path for a long time to come.
|
Lovely partisan spin along with all the "no compromise" talk that ignore the fact that there was a deal on the table before Obama decided to demand an addition $400 billion in tax increases to those already agreed on. To be fair, Obama had zero executive experience at that point and almost no meaningful political experience so he didn't realize Democrats normally do that kind of backstab after the initial agreement is done, not before.
|
On September 07 2012 03:51 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations. Except it is because it steals economic growth. It's the reason my living room is bigger than most European apartments. I think Romney and Ryan have plans to avoid it while Obama is busy pointing fingers.
So we have to elect them first to find out what that plan is?
Because their current plan is the typical voodoo Reaganomics, and I think people have figured out that tax cuts + increased spending + miniscule cuts to important social programs doesn't actually make for balanced budgets.
|
On September 07 2012 04:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:51 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations. Except it is because it steals economic growth. It's the reason my living room is bigger than most European apartments. Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff? I think Romney and Ryan have plans to avoid it while Obama is busy pointing fingers. So we have to elect them first to find out what that plan is? Because their current plan is the typical voodoo Reaganomics, and I think people have figured out that tax cuts + increased spending + miniscule cuts to important social programs doesn't actually make for balanced budgets.
That should be inarguable 
|
On September 07 2012 04:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 04:21 Leporello wrote:On September 07 2012 03:51 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations. Except it is because it steals economic growth. It's the reason my living room is bigger than most European apartments. Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff? I think Romney and Ryan have plans to avoid it while Obama is busy pointing fingers. So we have to elect them first to find out what that plan is? Because their current plan is the typical voodoo Reaganomics, and I think people have figured out that tax cuts + increased spending + miniscule cuts to important social programs doesn't actually make for balanced budgets. That should be inarguable
I'm sure we're all about to be surprised.
|
On September 07 2012 04:18 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. Society has been on a trajectory towards greater Social Progress (liberalism and expanding central government) for many hundreds of years. There is no indiciation that the course will be reversed any time soon. The liberals have faced occasional momentary setbacks, but have generally won the confrontation on every major issue. All of their social programs are in place. That trajectory is mirrored in any chart that shows growth of the federal government. The conversation is never about whether or not to get rid of welfare, but whether to merely place a cap on it so that spending on it grows, but at not so high a rate. Think as a liberal--how would you view the last couple hundred years? Looks like things are generally headed in your direction. Think as a conservative--it's just been one loss after another. Why would a conservative participate in a discussion that merely slows the erosion of the society they deem to be ideal? Liberals can afford to make compromises because all they have to do is get their foot in the door with a program and then it's extremely difficult to get it taken away. Not only that but the existence of the Supreme Court (which generally backs them up) and rising participation in higher education ensures that society will continue to head down their path for a long time to come.
No. Then again, I'm a "liberal" so I actually look at things like the history of U.S. taxes. Our income tax hasn't been as low as it is now for over a hundred years. Our social programs are often half-way measures, whereas most first-world country's are moving forward with government programs that provide the welfare and security that government should. I guess I just don't see healthcare, social security and welfare as "government power-grabs". Part of the reason is motive -- Republicans will tell you that Democrats like these social programs because they're evil socialists who want to expand government -- but why? Why do Democrats want to expand government-provided healthcare? What is the amoral motive for them wanting to do such a vile thing? It couldn't possibly be to improve the quality of life of the sick and the poor, could it?
|
On September 07 2012 04:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 03:51 dvorakftw wrote:On September 07 2012 03:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
Debt is not just debt -- the money is owed somewhere, to someone, but nearly all of it to the US. The point is not that government debt is costless, but it's not a burden on future generations. Except it is because it steals economic growth. It's the reason my living room is bigger than most European apartments. Since you're so concern about debt, what do you think of the fiscal cliff? I think Romney and Ryan have plans to avoid it while Obama is busy pointing fingers. So we have to elect them first to find out what that plan is? Because their current plan is the typical voodoo Reaganomics, and I think people have figured out that tax cuts + increased spending + miniscule cuts to important social programs doesn't actually make for balanced budgets.
Bill Clinton's assessment of the Romney 'plan' is absolutely accurate. It would either require ignoring the debt completely or making dramatic cuts to spending and tax credits that benefit the middle class during a recession -- which any economist would tell you would hurt the economy, not save it.
I've raised this issue many times on this thread and not a single conservative -- and there are a lot of smart guy in this thread I respect -- have been able to explain how cutting 5 trillion in tax revenue and increasing the defense budget would improve short term job growth or pay down the debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
