Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
18 votes (64.28%)

28 members have voted

ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 4:51:40 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

I'm still trying to figure out which part of his post is well thought out. Is it the part where he denies that he's Kreskin? Perhaps the part where he invokes the US Constitution, conveniently omitting the part where the Executive Branch has veto power over the Legislative Branch? Perhaps it's the part where he states that he wants spending to stop but doesn't give any examples of what programs he wants eliminated and how much that would save?

Like I said before, I hope a Republican wins the White House in 2012 so that we can go back to ignoring the deficit.



It's the part where I anticipated your responses before you said them. I telegraphed them AGAIN in the second post.

You may deny them, and that's okay. But it's there for god and everybody to see.

I would rather hear a rebuttal as to your thoughts on why my identification of a Democrat-held house does not = higher % deficit, and that the House writes spending bills, etc.

But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.

But even now, I'm guessing you won't. Just a guess, but a good one. Your call on whether or not you want to prove me right ... again.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 5:01:01 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Intellectual honesty hasn't been a major force in U.S. politics for a very long time now. Everyone's blaming each other for the same thing, and not all of them can be right. But all of them can be, and often are, wrong. The economy is broken because Congress is broken. Congress was never intended to be a divided entity the way it is now, where loyalty to party trumps loyalty to legislative body. That's thrown off the entire balance part of the "checks-and-balances" we all learned about in grade school. It's all well and good to deride "years of increased government spending" under both GOP and Dem Presidents, but that's the way Congress voted. They're the ones writing the spending bills. The President just signs them.



No doubt, intellectual honesty has not been a major force. But I don't think the concept/philosophy of Congress is broken. I think that people in Congress are broken. Loyalty to party is not the bellwether, though. Loyalty to what works is. Making a choice between which party's philosophy is closer to what actually works, I'll take the Republicans over the Democrats. That doesn't mean Republican = what works. It means that Republicans hold a philosophy closer to what works than Democrats. At least, it does if you look at how Democrats vote and the reasons for the current budget impasse.

Quote: MathExtremist

And now you have the Tea Party saying "no more taxes, period". Hundreds of GOP legislators have signed a pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform that they will never raise taxes, and that includes not repealing tax-break loopholes. Quite frankly, that's stupid. It implies that the current taxation policy is correct even while everyone who's paying attention agrees that it's not. So it's broken but we'll pledge not to fix it? That's nonsensical -- and intellectually dishonest.



Not quite. Tea Party says no more additional spending, and cuts to current spending. They also think that higher taxes does not = higher government revenue. Tea Partiers are no less fallible than any other group, but they're right on those two main points, which is what gives them their grass-roots power. Also, it's wrong to assume GOP = Tea Party. Finally, it's wrong to assign bad motive to using tax loopholes. Loophole-finders are perfectly law-abiding. Your gripe isn't with loophole-finders. It's with the folks who wrote the tax laws.

Until your thinking is correct on those points, I'm not sure there's much else to talk about here.

Quote: MathExtremist

The right thing to do is to examine the levels of government spending in the various programs that the public demands (e.g. "cut social security over my dead body") and then figure out how to pay for that. I recall that the big 3 entitlement programs are set to grow to more than 100% of tax revenues at some point in the next 20-25 years if everything stays as-is. The bare facts of an increasingly older population and increasingly longer post-retirement life make accelerated entitlement spending a certainty -- accelerated beyond the rate of tax revenue increases. Yet Congress has failed to make a credible attempt at putting in place a plan to smooth over the coming turmoil, because anyone who even brings it up will get voted out of office. So I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that blaming each other for the situation is the wrong one. I also know that rigid, dogmatic fixation on using only one of the two big levers in fiscal policy is wrong-headed. That's like trying to play roulette on a layout with only red numbers -- you're missing half the game.



The issue has been efforted to be addressed before, most recently GWB after the 2004 election, but has not had the popular political will to be seriously confronted. Being voted out of office is also correct, see also 2006 election results. But that is changing. I don't know where it's going to land or if anything will ultimately change. But it is changing.

Before condemning fiscal policy to two levers, tell me what other levers are. Playing with only red numbers is perfectly legitimate if there are no other colors.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 5:01:31 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

It's the part where I anticipated your responses before you said them. I telegraphed them AGAIN in the second post.

You may deny them, and that's okay. But it's there for god and everybody to see.

I would rather hear a rebuttal as to your thoughts on why my identification of a Democrat-held house does not = higher % deficit, and that the House writes spending bills, etc.

But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.

But even now, I'm guessing you won't. Just a guess, but a good one. Your call on whether or not you want to prove me right ... again.

I'm assuming that there's a question somewhere in there but I don't see it. It's mostly just patting yourself on the back for posting a table that shows that under Republican presidents, the debt rises much faster than under Democratic presidents and then saying that a liberal will point that out. I guess I must be obfuscating again but you win, congratulations.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 5:07:39 PM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

Now who is being hysterical ? The sky is falling, the sky is falling !



It's not hysterical to say the sky is falling when it actually is.

If any group can be accused of over-using the "sky is falling" argument, it's the Dems:

"Republicans want old people to choose between medicine and food."
"Black churches will burn if Republicans are elected."
"Republicans want children to starve rather than give them a lunch."
"Bush lied, people died."
"In 10 years, we will be facing melted polar ice caps if we don't do something about global warming."

I'm not sure I have to keep going with this.

It may be contemplated that Republicans are playing a similar card when they're saying we can't spend any more money without crashing the USA's credit rating.

You know, except that S&P and Moody's have telegraphed downgrading, and the $15+ trillion projected debt, and increasing tax rates = lower government revenue, as FACT shows.

You or anyone else can say that fact isn't = fact. I can also say that the USA just won the Women's World Cup. But both are equally deluded.

You or anyone else can choose to live in delusion. That's your choice. But I do not believe the women just won the Cup, and you should not believe that the sky is not in imminent danger of falling.
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 5:09:57 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

I'm assuming that there's a question somewhere in there but I don't see it. It's mostly just patting yourself on the back for posting a table that shows that under Republican presidents, the debt rises much faster than under Democratic presidents and then saying that a liberal will point that out. I guess I must be obfuscating again but you win, congratulations.



What purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?

I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.

What room is there in asking questions under those parameters? Talking to you is like talking to a 2-year-old. Don't obfuscate and I won't say you're obfuscating. There are several threads where people who hold different opinions than me answer me directly. I don't agree, but I don't accuse them of obfuscating. You, OTOH, obfuscate. You don't answer, probably because you can't answer.

Obfuscate again. Don't answer. (Just a prediction, but so far, so obvious.)
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 5:16:32 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.

But even now, I'm guessing you won't.

???
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

What purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?

I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.

What room is there in asking questions under those parameters?

So which is it? Should I answer this mystery question or not?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Talking to you is like talking to a 2-year-old.

The feeling is mutual. I'm glad we can agree on something.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
July 17th, 2011 at 5:19:00 PM permalink
We interrupt this flame war to renew my proposal to move all political threads to Free Speech.

Thank you. You may resume your war now...
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 5:27:52 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.

But even now, I'm guessing you won't.

???
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

What purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?

I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.

What room is there in asking questions under those parameters?

So which is it? Should I answer this mystery question or not?The feeling is mutual. I'm glad we can agree on something.



Parsed again. Predictable, again. Why do you liberals make it so easy? Do you really think folks (if they so choose) can't look back through the thread?

Is that the same thinking that Obama has when he says last December, in extending the Bush tax cuts, that the current tax levels are needed to maintain a growing* economy, but now says that tax rates should increase to save the economy?

Nareed is no arbiter of fairness, he's not impartial, and he's wrong about calling this a flame war. Flame wars involve name-calling; neither you nor I have done that. But the reality of what your own guys say vs. what they say now and what you support is just ... wow. Really? REALLY?!?

I suppose the thinking of someone based in reality can seem like a 2-year-old's to someone who's not. That's okay. It's just another way to obfuscate. The difference is, you can only repeat what I already say, vs. making your own points.

Really, I would have more respect for you if you would at least respond rather than dodge and obfuscate. But I don't guess you really care about what I respect. That's okay, if that's what you need to feel better, I guess I can't deny you that. When I was 2, I probably imagined similar things.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
July 17th, 2011 at 5:36:04 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Flame wars involve name-calling

Sort of like comparing someone to a two year old? Maybe I'm just obfuscating again but I'm not seeing a question that requires an answer.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 17th, 2011 at 5:37:32 PM permalink
Quote: s2dbaker

Sort of like comparing someone to a two year old? Maybe I'm just obfuscating again but I'm not seeing a question that requires an answer.



Yup, you're obfuscating. If you don't mind, please post the WHOLE quote. It's right there, anyone can read it for themselves.

  • Jump to: