On April 26 2012 04:05 xDaunt wrote: Apparently this video is setting off a bit of shitstorm and even Drudge picked it up.
I doubt anyone on the left is going to like it, but it is well done.
"I muster a straight face to teach the next generation that they are causing global warming. And when it's cold out, call it climate change instead."
Is such a laughable misunderstanding of climate science that I can't take the video seriously.
Are you denying that that is what the man-made global warming advocates did?
Global warming is simply a fact, the earth is getting hotter by the decade, the is the evidence, stats and historical record to prove it. Scientists that stand against now spend time claiming the rise is irrelevant, not that it isn't happening. A cold week one particular week doesn't offset trends that last decades. Hell, we could have a 5 year span of colder than average winters and it wouldn't come close to offset everything that has changed since 1900.
Yeah, I understand what the theory is. However, if you look at news headlines over the course of the 2000s, you'll see a fairly remarkable change in terminology somewhere in the middle of the decade where the term "global warming" was abandoned in favor of "climate change."
Because climate change is a better catch all term for everything going on than global warming, a single aspect of it. And words and terms come in and out of favour. Plus what's being reported on is usually just a super dumbed down version of the real science. Not a bad thing, viewers don't tend to be scientists. But both terms have been around since the mid seventies. The first place where the term global warming was used scientifically was a paper called, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Note how both terms were in existence.
As for how the media reports, there isn't a bunch of scientists sitting there checking terminology every night for the six o'clock news. The mass media isn't the bell ringer of scientific progress.
"If I wanted america to fail, I'd start more wars that eat deeply into the already overdrawn federal budget. If I wanted america to fail, I'd care about corporations more than about the people. If I wanted america to fail, I'd choose more shortsightedness than being aware of the way the world works.
I doubt anyone on the left is going to like it, but it is well done.
"I muster a straight face to teach the next generation that they are causing global warming. And when it's cold out, call it climate change instead."
Is such a laughable misunderstanding of climate science that I can't take the video seriously.
Are you denying that that is what the man-made global warming advocates did?
Ummm, yes.
Since it's slightly related to Obama v Romney's policies I think I can go into some detail about the incredible misunderstanding about the climate change debate.
June 24th, 1974 Time magazine (among other magazines and newspapers) publishes an article that warns about an impending ice age. Time magazine is not scientific literature, nor is it peer reviewed. So I ask where is the legitimate scientific literature by respectable scientists in the field of climatology are that predicting an ice age? While it's true there are scientists named in the article who said the earth is cooling (which was a known effect of pollution and aerosols), none substantiate any claim about an impending ice age.
When you actually look at the papers published during the late 60's and 70's you find nothing of the sort. There were only 7 papers the American Meteorological Society found which supported cooling, but none predicting an ice age. There were also 40+ papers published which predicted global warming (most of which predicted that rising CO2 levels would overwhelm the cooling we see from pollution). http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Then people misunderstood (at best, at worst they blatantly mislead people) the difference between climate and weather. People would perpetuate the idiotic "well it snowed here this year, so much for global warming" line until the name "global warming" had to be defended against idiotic statements. The name was "changed" to climate change to avoid that and decades of research stayed exactly the same. It is a complete misrepresentation of all of the hard work over the last few decades that these scientists have done. Instead we play semantic word games, invent "climatological cassandra's" in Time magazine predicting ice ages and defend hacked emails that were investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing.
I hate when someone perpetuates the myth in order to try and diminish the actual science behind climate change and then try and co-opt it into a political advantage. Yes, the Earth is warming and there is proof. The only debate left is if the warming is anthropogenic or not and overwhelmingly the scientific community says it is.
On April 26 2012 04:27 xDaunt wrote: However, if you look at news headlines over the course of the 2000s, you'll see a fairly remarkable change in terminology somewhere in the middle of the decade where the term "global warming" was abandoned in favor of "climate change."
True, but that's the mainstream media's fault for catering to the average uneducated American reader, not the fault of actual climate scientists. Scientific publications have been far more consistent.
On April 26 2012 04:27 xDaunt wrote: However, if you look at news headlines over the course of the 2000s, you'll see a fairly remarkable change in terminology somewhere in the middle of the decade where the term "global warming" was abandoned in favor of "climate change."
True, but that's the mainstream media's fault for catering to the average uneducated American reader, not the fault of actual climate scientists. Scientific publications have been far more consistent.
Psst... Haven't you heard it?
If the media is reporting in a way that is comforitng you (even because their obviously blowing stuff up) it's not "bad" media, it's biased scientists with some form of agenda. Now if it's the other way around it is the "leftist media" that will sell you anything.
On April 26 2012 04:45 Zoesan wrote: The video is still bullshit. Anyone with a shred of economic, politic and scientific understanding can see that.
I laughed the most at the european part, although for a moment it made sense to me; I mean europe is in a huge shitpile isn't it? Well yes. It is. But not really worse than the US, people in europe just understand better. The (northern) european economic model was actually pretty damn good, germany did excellent even though they had to lug eastern germany through the past 2 decades. It all went to shit because (southern) countries spent billions more than they could afford... copying the US system, not the european one. If you look at the independent european countries (parts of scandinavia, switzerland) that don't have to bail greece etc. out, you get a majorly different picture. Also, how the fuck can you believe that oil is the future? Yes, it's necessary now, I won't deny that. But sooner or later it will run out. And you damn well better have infrastructure up, when that happens or you'll be in a world of hurt.
And to the post above me: did it? I never really noticed, but does it really matter what it's called? Global warming is the consensus of the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists. So unless you believe in some weird conspiracy to god knows what ends by scientists from all over the world, different cultures, ethnicities and religions, well, then you better accept it. As tercotta said, one cold winter doesn't mean anything. The trend is clear.
The most recent studies of US oil reserves shows that the US has enough recoverable oil to fuel domestic consumption at current rates for 250 years. So yeah, we're not running out any time soon.
On April 26 2012 04:45 Zoesan wrote: The video is still bullshit. Anyone with a shred of economic, politic and scientific understanding can see that.
I laughed the most at the european part, although for a moment it made sense to me; I mean europe is in a huge shitpile isn't it? Well yes. It is. But not really worse than the US, people in europe just understand better. The (northern) european economic model was actually pretty damn good, germany did excellent even though they had to lug eastern germany through the past 2 decades. It all went to shit because (southern) countries spent billions more than they could afford... copying the US system, not the european one. If you look at the independent european countries (parts of scandinavia, switzerland) that don't have to bail greece etc. out, you get a majorly different picture. Also, how the fuck can you believe that oil is the future? Yes, it's necessary now, I won't deny that. But sooner or later it will run out. And you damn well better have infrastructure up, when that happens or you'll be in a world of hurt.
And to the post above me: did it? I never really noticed, but does it really matter what it's called? Global warming is the consensus of the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists. So unless you believe in some weird conspiracy to god knows what ends by scientists from all over the world, different cultures, ethnicities and religions, well, then you better accept it. As tercotta said, one cold winter doesn't mean anything. The trend is clear.
The most recent studies of US oil reserves shows that the US has enough recoverable oil to fuel domestic consumption at current rates for 250 years. So yeah, we're not running out any time soon.
I doubt anyone on the left is going to like it, but it is well done.
"I muster a straight face to teach the next generation that they are causing global warming. And when it's cold out, call it climate change instead."
Is such a laughable misunderstanding of climate science that I can't take the video seriously.
Are you denying that that is what the man-made global warming advocates did?
Global warming is simply a fact, the earth is getting hotter by the decade, the is the evidence, stats and historical record to prove it. Scientists that stand against now spend time claiming the rise is irrelevant, not that it isn't happening. A cold week one particular week doesn't offset trends that last decades. Hell, we could have a 5 year span of colder than average winters and it wouldn't come close to offset everything that has changed since 1900.
Yeah, I understand what the theory is. However, if you look at news headlines over the course of the 2000s, you'll see a fairly remarkable change in terminology somewhere in the middle of the decade where the term "global warming" was abandoned in favor of "climate change."
That's because people seem to miss the global part. And even so the equivellent words of "global warming" is still used heavily in some countries/groups, it's not like everyone desided to abandon the term.
On April 26 2012 04:45 Zoesan wrote: The video is still bullshit. Anyone with a shred of economic, politic and scientific understanding can see that.
I laughed the most at the european part, although for a moment it made sense to me; I mean europe is in a huge shitpile isn't it? Well yes. It is. But not really worse than the US, people in europe just understand better. The (northern) european economic model was actually pretty damn good, germany did excellent even though they had to lug eastern germany through the past 2 decades. It all went to shit because (southern) countries spent billions more than they could afford... copying the US system, not the european one. If you look at the independent european countries (parts of scandinavia, switzerland) that don't have to bail greece etc. out, you get a majorly different picture. Also, how the fuck can you believe that oil is the future? Yes, it's necessary now, I won't deny that. But sooner or later it will run out. And you damn well better have infrastructure up, when that happens or you'll be in a world of hurt.
And to the post above me: did it? I never really noticed, but does it really matter what it's called? Global warming is the consensus of the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists. So unless you believe in some weird conspiracy to god knows what ends by scientists from all over the world, different cultures, ethnicities and religions, well, then you better accept it. As tercotta said, one cold winter doesn't mean anything. The trend is clear.
The most recent studies of US oil reserves shows that the US has enough recoverable oil to fuel domestic consumption at current rates for 250 years. So yeah, we're not running out any time soon.
I guess this is good news if you ignore the static consumption rate which bases its prediction off of, continued projected rise of gas prices and you find nothing wrong with the pollutant problems of oil emissions.
The oil addiction reminds of fat people with a refrigerator full of cake and burgers who say they want to delay going on a diet because they don't want to waste what's in the fridge now. Then they space out the cake into the diet into elongated intervals diminishing the full effect of the diet. I understand short term pleasure, not wasting and such but it's time to look beyond digging up more harmful shit from the ground.
On April 26 2012 08:03 forgottendreams wrote: The oil addiction reminds of fat people with a refrigerator full of cake and burgers who say they want to delay going on a diet because they don't want to waste what's in the fridge now. Then they space out the cake into the diet into elongated intervals diminishing the full effect of the diet. I understand short term pleasure, not wasting and such but it's time to look beyond digging up more harmful shit from the ground.
While I tend to side with environmentalists on this issue, your analogy isn't a fair characterization.
Continuing our oil addiction isn't a matter of short-term pleasure; it has real, tangible short-term benefits to our economy. Ultimately, environmentalists are concerned with the long-term drawbacks of our energy situation, but conservatives are more concerned with ensuring American prosperity now.
While one can argue that the conservative position is short-sighted or otherwise problematic, it's not as cut-and-dry as simply assuming they're being foolish.
On April 26 2012 08:03 forgottendreams wrote: The oil addiction reminds of fat people with a refrigerator full of cake and burgers who say they want to delay going on a diet because they don't want to waste what's in the fridge now. Then they space out the cake into the diet into elongated intervals diminishing the full effect of the diet. I understand short term pleasure, not wasting and such but it's time to look beyond digging up more harmful shit from the ground.
While I tend to side with environmentalists on this issue, your analogy isn't a fair characterization.
Continuing our oil addiction isn't a matter of short-term pleasure; it has real, tangible short-term benefits to our economy. Ultimately, environmentalists are concerned with the long-term drawbacks of our energy situation, but conservatives are more concerned with ensuring American prosperity now.
While one can argue that the conservative position is short-sighted or otherwise problematic, it's not as cut-and-dry as simply assuming they're being foolish.
If you're particularly apocalyptic, there's signs that peak oil has already passed, and that the best solution would be a comprehensive, long term energy plan that uses the world's remaining oil to create the infrastructure necessary to ween ourselves off it.
No amount of drilling or oil sands is make gas any cheaper or oil more abundant. The sheer amount of money (and oil) required to filter oil from sands or build a rig in the middle of the ocean makes harvesting oil much more cost-inefficient then the glory days of Texas tea seeping out of the ground.
It will be interesting to see how either candidate broaches this issue, if at all. It will probably be more simplistic "Drill baby, drill!" BS.
Here's what I posted in the Republican Nominations thread as an explanation for why Obama is going to lose the election (I've updated the post a bit):
1) Bad economy. This is the big one.
No argument here. People have short memories. It's pretty unreasonable to blame Obama for not fixing 8 years of Bush shitting all over your country, but people will anyway. It's hard to imagine McCain or Romney doing much better, but the grass is always greener to silly Americans.
There is nothing that Romney suggests that makes me believe he could do a better job improving the economy.
Job growth HAS increased over the past four years, but not enough for Obama not to be vulnerable.
2) Obamacare.
Not quite "twice as expensive" but yes, it cost money. It's not that unpopular an idea as you think it is, considering the Affordable Care Act includes coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and no life-time cap. It's an imperfect solution that makes healthcare affordable for the poor but does little to address the US primary problem -- that the US healthcare market is the wild west and there's little to no reason for it to be more efficient or cost-effective.
It's a wonky issue. "Obamacare" is really just "Romneycare", and one of the few successful achievements that Romney could have pointed to that makes him appear centrist and could appeal to independents. Of course now he thinks he's own idea was shit. It will be interesting to see if Romney can attack Obama for Obamacare without it being thrown back in his face.
3) High gas prices.
Americans pay less for gas than any country in the world, and are drilling more than you ever had in history. But Americans are whiners, and will probably blame Obama for not shitting black gold. Maybe Mitt will use his Midas Mormon touch and find some massive oil reserves in the woods of upstate New York, because that's the only thing that's going to make any real difference.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history.
Link please? Didn't Obama try to end the Bush Tax cuts and raise taxes on millions and Republicans shit their collective pants? Didn't this include the Automotive and Bank bailouts and two wars started by his predecessor?
5) Afghanistan.
Yup. What a debacle. Leaving a war is a lot harder than starting one, that's for sure.
6) Lack of achievement.
We already argued this in the Republican thread. I'm having deja vu here. Obamacare is a wash, the auto bailout is huge, killed Obama, ended the war in Iraq ... but yeah ...
I'm not sure what Americans expect in 4 years. Obama will get a pass from democrats when they consider the unprecedented level of obstruction in congress, but I don't know if he'll convert anyone that isn't already a believer.
On April 25 2012 09:57 xDaunt wrote: Hah, great line from Romney during his speech: "The past few years are the best that President Obama can do. They are not the best that America can do."
It's such an appeal to ignorance it's hilarious.
I wish all the people in this thread would provide reasoned arguments for their opinions rather than just make single-sentence statements and then assume that everyone will take their view that they're correct. If you feel like what Romney says is ignorant, then explain why you take that view (e.g. Talk about why without Obama's such and such policies America would not be as ahead as it currently is or something). Don't just say it's hilarious and then not back it up with why you think it's so wrong, because then it's just hilarious to no-one but yourself.
It's pretty obvious he inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy from Bush. Those things surely had an effect on why his term has looked so bad.
And, like others have pointed out, a Congress whose #1 goal was to chase the President out of the White House. They have proposed almost nothing of substance, always playing the political games.
Umm he had a majority in both houses for the first 2 years. All his budgets get shot down unanimously by both sides.
The senate is a weird place where standard rules dont apply. In senate 60 out of 100 is the only majority that matters and he had that for a little less than a year and even then getting uninanimous consent in just your party on anything is near impossible.
That is incorrect. Under senate rules you cannot fillibuster a budget. Not having 60 votes does not excuse them for not passing a budget. Also the democrats used budget reconcilliation rules to pass the healthcare law without 60 votes.
That is not 100% true. What they did was have the house pass the senate version which was passed before Ted Kennedy died and passed with 60 votes and then the Senate used reconsilliation to alter the bill because passing the entire bill under it would not have been allowed. Even that usage of it was considered rare and unorthodox (though not as unorthodox as filibustering everything is)
Here's what I posted in the Republican Nominations thread as an explanation for why Obama is going to lose the election (I've updated the post a bit):
1) Bad economy. This is the big one.
No argument here. People have short memories. It's pretty unreasonable to blame Obama for not fixing 8 years of Bush shitting all over your country, but people will anyway. It's hard to imagine McCain or Romney doing much better, but the grass is always greener to silly Americans.
There is nothing that Romney suggests that makes me believe he could do a better job improving the economy.
Job growth HAS increased over the past four years, but not enough for Obama not to be vulnerable.
2) Obamacare.
Not quite "twice as expensive" but yes, it cost money. It's not that unpopular an idea as you think it is, considering the Affordable Care Act includes coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and no life-time cap. It's an imperfect solution that makes healthcare affordable for the poor but does little to address the US primary problem -- that the US healthcare market is the wild west and there's little to no reason for it to be more efficient or cost-effective.
It's a wonky issue. "Obamacare" is really just "Romneycare", and one of the few successful achievements that Romney could have pointed to that makes him appear centrist and could appeal to independents. Of course now he thinks he's own idea was shit. It will be interesting to see if Romney can attack Obama for Obamacare without it being thrown back in his face.
3) High gas prices.
Americans pay less for gas than any country in the world, and are drilling more than you ever had in history. But Americans are whiners, and will probably blame Obama for not shitting black gold. Maybe Mitt will use his Midas Mormon touch and find some massive oil reserves in the woods of upstate New York, because that's the only thing that's going to make any real difference.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history.
Link please? Didn't Obama try to end the Bush Tax cuts and raise taxes on millions and Republicans shit their collective pants? Didn't this include the Automotive and Bank bailouts and two wars started by his predecessor?
5) Afghanistan.
Yup. What a debacle. Leaving a war is a lot harder than starting one, that's for sure.
6) Lack of achievement.
We already argued this in the Republican thread. I'm having deja vu here. Obamacare is a wash, the auto bailout is huge, killed Obama, ended the war in Iraq ... but yeah ...
I'm not sure what Americans expect in 4 years. Obama will get a pass from democrats when they consider the unprecedented level of obstruction in congress, but I don't know if he'll convert anyone that isn't already a believer.
The debt has gone up by over $5 trillion so far during Obama's first term, more than during anyone else's presidency -- even Bush's two terms combined.
Also, as I pointed out above, blaming Congress for Obama's lack of achievement is a sorry excuse. He had huge majorities in the legislature for the first two years. The real problem is that he didn't even attempt to find common ground with republicans. He barely could find common ground with his own party (see Obamacare). Bush and Clinton each invited members of the opposing party to write signature pieces of legislation (No Child Left Behind and welfare reform are just two examples). Obama did no such thing. Any lack of achievement is strictly on him for being politically incompetent.
Here's what I posted in the Republican Nominations thread as an explanation for why Obama is going to lose the election (I've updated the post a bit):
1) Bad economy. This is the big one.
No argument here. People have short memories. It's pretty unreasonable to blame Obama for not fixing 8 years of Bush shitting all over your country, but people will anyway. It's hard to imagine McCain or Romney doing much better, but the grass is always greener to silly Americans.
There is nothing that Romney suggests that makes me believe he could do a better job improving the economy.
Job growth HAS increased over the past four years, but not enough for Obama not to be vulnerable.
2) Obamacare.
Not quite "twice as expensive" but yes, it cost money. It's not that unpopular an idea as you think it is, considering the Affordable Care Act includes coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and no life-time cap. It's an imperfect solution that makes healthcare affordable for the poor but does little to address the US primary problem -- that the US healthcare market is the wild west and there's little to no reason for it to be more efficient or cost-effective.
It's a wonky issue. "Obamacare" is really just "Romneycare", and one of the few successful achievements that Romney could have pointed to that makes him appear centrist and could appeal to independents. Of course now he thinks he's own idea was shit. It will be interesting to see if Romney can attack Obama for Obamacare without it being thrown back in his face.
3) High gas prices.
Americans pay less for gas than any country in the world, and are drilling more than you ever had in history. But Americans are whiners, and will probably blame Obama for not shitting black gold. Maybe Mitt will use his Midas Mormon touch and find some massive oil reserves in the woods of upstate New York, because that's the only thing that's going to make any real difference.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history.
Link please? Didn't Obama try to end the Bush Tax cuts and raise taxes on millions and Republicans shit their collective pants? Didn't this include the Automotive and Bank bailouts and two wars started by his predecessor?
5) Afghanistan.
Yup. What a debacle. Leaving a war is a lot harder than starting one, that's for sure.
6) Lack of achievement.
We already argued this in the Republican thread. I'm having deja vu here. Obamacare is a wash, the auto bailout is huge, killed Obama, ended the war in Iraq ... but yeah ...
I'm not sure what Americans expect in 4 years. Obama will get a pass from democrats when they consider the unprecedented level of obstruction in congress, but I don't know if he'll convert anyone that isn't already a believer.
The debt has gone up by over $5 trillion so far during Obama's first term, more than during anyone else's presidency -- even Bush's two terms combined.
Also, as I pointed out above, blaming Congress for Obama's lack of achievement is a sorry excuse. He had huge majorities in the legislature for the first two years. The real problem is that he didn't even attempt to find common ground with republicans. He barely could find common ground with his own party (see Obamacare). Bush and Clinton each invited members of the opposing party to write signature pieces of legislation (No Child Left Behind and welfare reform are just two examples). Obama did no such thing. Any lack of achievement is strictly on him for being politically incompetent.
And Obama didn't invite Republicans to help draft legislation? He had a majority in Congress that did nothing but cower at Republican threats. He kept starting in the middle, trying to meet them halfway, and then they would move the goal post.
As for the spending, a lot of the debt/deficit came from even lower tax revenue in the recession, mixed with the proper response of economic stimulus. And despite this supposedly huge deficit, we're still borrowing at record low rates. But hey, if you want to join southern Europe and the UK in austerity, then see the economy fall again, then by all means, vote for Republicans who want to drastically cut government.
Here's what I posted in the Republican Nominations thread as an explanation for why Obama is going to lose the election (I've updated the post a bit):
1) Bad economy. This is the big one.
No argument here. People have short memories. It's pretty unreasonable to blame Obama for not fixing 8 years of Bush shitting all over your country, but people will anyway. It's hard to imagine McCain or Romney doing much better, but the grass is always greener to silly Americans.
There is nothing that Romney suggests that makes me believe he could do a better job improving the economy.
Job growth HAS increased over the past four years, but not enough for Obama not to be vulnerable.
2) Obamacare.
Not quite "twice as expensive" but yes, it cost money. It's not that unpopular an idea as you think it is, considering the Affordable Care Act includes coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and no life-time cap. It's an imperfect solution that makes healthcare affordable for the poor but does little to address the US primary problem -- that the US healthcare market is the wild west and there's little to no reason for it to be more efficient or cost-effective.
It's a wonky issue. "Obamacare" is really just "Romneycare", and one of the few successful achievements that Romney could have pointed to that makes him appear centrist and could appeal to independents. Of course now he thinks he's own idea was shit. It will be interesting to see if Romney can attack Obama for Obamacare without it being thrown back in his face.
3) High gas prices.
Americans pay less for gas than any country in the world, and are drilling more than you ever had in history. But Americans are whiners, and will probably blame Obama for not shitting black gold. Maybe Mitt will use his Midas Mormon touch and find some massive oil reserves in the woods of upstate New York, because that's the only thing that's going to make any real difference.
4) High debt. Biggest spender in American history.
Link please? Didn't Obama try to end the Bush Tax cuts and raise taxes on millions and Republicans shit their collective pants? Didn't this include the Automotive and Bank bailouts and two wars started by his predecessor?
5) Afghanistan.
Yup. What a debacle. Leaving a war is a lot harder than starting one, that's for sure.
6) Lack of achievement.
We already argued this in the Republican thread. I'm having deja vu here. Obamacare is a wash, the auto bailout is huge, killed Obama, ended the war in Iraq ... but yeah ...
I'm not sure what Americans expect in 4 years. Obama will get a pass from democrats when they consider the unprecedented level of obstruction in congress, but I don't know if he'll convert anyone that isn't already a believer.
The debt has gone up by over $5 trillion so far during Obama's first term, more than during anyone else's presidency -- even Bush's two terms combined.
Also, as I pointed out above, blaming Congress for Obama's lack of achievement is a sorry excuse. He had huge majorities in the legislature for the first two years. The real problem is that he didn't even attempt to find common ground with republicans. He barely could find common ground with his own party (see Obamacare). Bush and Clinton each invited members of the opposing party to write signature pieces of legislation (No Child Left Behind and welfare reform are just two examples). Obama did no such thing. Any lack of achievement is strictly on him for being politically incompetent.
And Obama didn't invite Republicans to help draft legislation? He had a majority in Congress that did nothing but cower at Republican threats. He kept starting in the middle, trying to meet them halfway, and then they would move the goal post.
As for the spending, a lot of the debt/deficit came from even lower tax revenue in the recession, mixed with the proper response of economic stimulus. And despite this supposedly huge deficit, we're still borrowing at record low rates. But hey, if you want to join southern Europe and the UK in austerity, then see the economy fall again, then by all means, vote for Republicans who want to drastically cut government.
The reason places like Greece have to have austerity measures now is because socialism fails when you run out of other peoples money. The retirement age was below 50 over there because they "stole" and borrowed money to pay for retirement and other social programs.
The federal tax revenue from 2007 to 2011 dropped 300 Mil [http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2007USbn_13bs1n#usgs302], which does not account for how much debit/deficit we have acquired. I know this seems counterintuitive to liberals who don't own a business, but lower taxes and creating less regulations can increase tax revenue. This is due to letting companies hire more people and expand businesses which in turn lets more people pay taxes and helps boost the revenue of companies, who then will pay more taxes. In my state of Maryland our governor increased taxes on on the top 5% by 5 to 10% expecting to get a huge increase in revenue. Instead millionaires and billionaires moved to DE and VA for lower state tax rates and Maryland saw a huge loss in revenue. I smile every time I think of that. =)
Please show me when the president started in the middle and the right moved the goal posts.
Also, "proper response of the economic stimulus?" Making public sector jobs don't help the economy. You are taking money from one group of people to give to another group of people. That doesn't create a market with higher amount of real jobs and more monetary value. Also I clearly remember Obama saying before the first stimulus, "we need to pass this now to make sure the unemployment doesn't get above 9%". We past is and it did get over 9% and stayed over 9% consistently up until recently.
Government is not the solution, government is the problem.
On April 26 2012 08:03 forgottendreams wrote: The oil addiction reminds of fat people with a refrigerator full of cake and burgers who say they want to delay going on a diet because they don't want to waste what's in the fridge now. Then they space out the cake into the diet into elongated intervals diminishing the full effect of the diet. I understand short term pleasure, not wasting and such but it's time to look beyond digging up more harmful shit from the ground.
While I tend to side with environmentalists on this issue, your analogy isn't a fair characterization.
Continuing our oil addiction isn't a matter of short-term pleasure; it has real, tangible short-term benefits to our economy. Ultimately, environmentalists are concerned with the long-term drawbacks of our energy situation, but conservatives are more concerned with ensuring American prosperity now.
While one can argue that the conservative position is short-sighted or otherwise problematic, it's not as cut-and-dry as simply assuming they're being foolish.
I think it's fair, and I think the analogy fits right in with people putting off medicare and SSI reform. People for the most part look for the easiest route possible.
On April 26 2012 13:35 .Wilsh. wrote: Also, "proper response of the economic stimulus?" Making public sector jobs don't help the economy. You are taking money from one group of people to give to another group of people. That doesn't create a market with higher amount of real jobs and more monetary value. Also I clearly remember Obama saying before the first stimulus, "we need to pass this now to make sure the unemployment doesn't get above 9%". We past is and it did get over 9% and stayed over 9% consistently up until recently.
Government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Context is important. You can't say that and apply it across every situation. If there is a deflationary spiral (Great Depression) or threat of one, it is imperative that some government entity get involved. In a normal economy, yes making public sector jobs doesn't help the economy, but in the situation where businesses face deflationary expectations there needs to be a boost of some kind. Just because Obama and his economic team didn't understand the grave situation we were in and had bad forecasts doesn't change this fact. It's a hard pill to swallow (and I personally didn't like much of the stimulus package), but without a stimulus the economy would've have been even worse. Though admittedly the Federal Reserve is the entity that did the most in our present situation to stem the crisis.
As a side note more public sector employees to improve a country's infrastructure is beneficial to all private businesses and really a necessity when the infrastructure is in need of an upgrade.
EPT
