Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:42 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:36 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Zaryi wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-JWF-090411-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Excellent OP-ED from today's NYT.


Basically what I've been saying, but, uh, more authoritatively.

One criticism: Comparison with Germany since 1985 is a bad one because, well, with the fall of the Wall there was nowhere to go but up.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:51 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
I like how it's always "the GOP holding things up" when the dems could just as easily have said, "You know, you're right, at this point in time, doing political favors for our friends should be a lower priority than the budget and disaster aid." I also enjoy how I'm "brainwashed," but you're the one essentially arguing for this bit of corporate welfare. I guess there must be something wrong with me, because when I cut through the invective and partisan sematics to the facts of the article, I see an emergency aid bill was held up by the dems insisting on handing money to corporations.


What you are saying is, the Dems should have given into bullying.

The debate was not over any bill but the FEMA bill and the GOP decided to broaden the debate to include a topic that had nothing to do with FEMA, to make the Dems look bad when they refused to give in to political extortion.

All the more so since when the place and time DID come (a month ago) for a no-holds-barred debate over the future of public spending and Obama put everything on the table, the GOP refused to play ball.

The GOP insisted on arguing an issue when it wasn't appropriate then ducked a serious discussion when the time came because they were more interested in making the other side look bad than following the process in good faith.

And you wonder why nothing gets done.

Jubbergun wrote:
Aestu wrote:
Quote:
All of this is background to say that the GOP has found the federal program that is arguably the most deserving of a cut to free up funds for disaster victims.


"Arguably". So the entire op-ed piece is hinged on circular reasoning: The GOP is right because they're right.

Whether the cut was right or wrong (and I'm not naive about the value, or absence thereof, of these environmental industry programs) is irrelevant. The salient point is, the GOP held up good government to advance their own agenda, then spun the issue with invective and blamed the Dems for the partisan wrangle the GOP started on an issue unrelated to FEMA funding.


That's weird, I was under the assumption just about everyone here agreed that corporate welfare was bad, yet now you're agreeing that it's only "arguably" deserving of being cut?


For a democratic system to work, all players need to play by the rules in good faith. It is no coincidence that rule of law, which is integral to the democratic system, works the same way. A democratic system integrates diverse viewpoints via due process. Trial proves guilt or innocence; debate proves value or fraud.

The fact that OJ Simpson was "obviously" guilty doesn't legitimize short-circuiting the justice process any more than the "arguable" lack of merit of this spending legitimizes short-circuiting the democratic process.

That the spending was "arguably" bad was to be proven in the appropriate theater, not during the funding of unrelated emergency legislation.

Jubbergun wrote:
It's hard not to blame the democrat officials involved with being guilty of partisanship when it's clear that certain members of their party are trading favors (or did you miss the part about how Joe Biden was funneling all this back home to Delaware?). Thinking that the "bad guys" are in the wrong despite ample evidence that your white hats are up to shenanigans...I think that's more in line with being brainwashed than thinking something we all agree is wrong is actually wrong and shouldn't happen.


That's fucking politics, dude. Pull your head out of your ass.

You think the GOP or tea party or any politicians, anywhere, ever, in the history of the world, don't do that?

Jubbergun wrote:
Aestu wrote:
And no these kinds of programs don't add up to that much, the pie chart we linked a few pages back show that all this "discretionary" spending (most of which is military-related) adds up to no more than $660B or less than half the gap.


Everything adds up, and at this point, every littel bit counts in large amounts. The "it doesn't add up to much" argument is how you ruin your budget by stopping for a donut and coffee every morning


Um... actually no it doesn't. Like I said:
Discretionary budget is $660B.
Budget deficit is $1.5T.

Even if every such spending item (and both GOP and Dems have their pets, and many are bipartisan) were axed, it wouldn't be enough to close the deficit.

You might as well try to pay your utility bill by searching your drier for coins.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:57 pm  
Blathering Buffoon
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 1152
Offline

Zaryi wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-JWF-090411-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Excellent OP-ED from today's NYT.


Quote:
Um, something about increasing GDP... I guess I'd start by trying to push policy that is better for businesses. Businesses create jobs. Businesses create worth. Businesses add to the over-all GDP. Businesses also lower unemployment since they'll need people to staff... and even if we can drop unemployment from 9.X% to 5% then that's 4% more people pushing money back into the economy (and into taxes) rather than leeching off our limited funds. I guess the pro-business policy would be a combination of lower corporate taxes, lesser regulation and better, more fair trade agreements.


This line of thinking is a pretty good example of why the right continuously fucks up the economy. Taking money from the spenders and putting it into the savers doesn't make the economy work. If the economy is stagnant and isn't growing, businesses aren't going to hire people. There is no point in continuously increasing production/services when the demand isn't there. It's bad business sense and it's the kind of thing that if a company did, it deserved to fail.

Businesses don't create worth, businesses pool worth. Consumers create worth. Consumers must be willing to pay for a product or service for it to have worth, and when the consumers aren't paying, the businesses can't do anything but cut employees/prices/services. The help needs to go towards getting the consumers spending, but instead the right has it ass backwards and wants to tax them more (increasing the payroll tax) while giving money to businesses so they can....keep waiting for the recovery that won't happen under the right's system.


Dvergar /
Quisling
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:24 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Dvergar wrote:
This line of thinking is a pretty good example of why the right continuously fucks up the economy. Taking money from the spenders and putting it into the savers doesn't make the economy work. If the economy is stagnant and isn't growing, businesses aren't going to hire people. There is no point in continuously increasing production/services when the demand isn't there. It's bad business sense and it's the kind of thing that if a company did, it deserved to fail.

Businesses don't create worth, businesses pool worth. Consumers create worth. Consumers must be willing to pay for a product or service for it to have worth, and when the consumers aren't paying, the businesses can't do anything but cut employees/prices/services. The help needs to go towards getting the consumers spending, but instead the right has it ass backwards and wants to tax them more (increasing the payroll tax) while giving money to businesses so they can....keep waiting for the recovery that won't happen under the right's system.


Also see: The Middle Ages

If this worked, castles would have driven economic booms.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:55 pm  
User avatar

Fat Bottomed Faggot
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:53 pm
Posts: 4251
Location: Minnesota
Offline

Quote:
This line of thinking is a pretty good example of why the right continuously fucks up the economy.

Without demand, what is there to produce?
Anything. It's called venturing. Someone comes up with something they think someone else will want, and they decide to produce it. If it turns out the market didn't want it, they stop producing it.

Without production, what is there to demand?

What Eturnal is suggesting is simply making production easier, and easier to turn a profit with. I'm sure most of us have unmet demands because we don't have the money. Some of us even have no met demand, because we have no income. Demands that could be met, and would subsequently justify production, if we had income - income that stems from working somewhere that produces goods and services.

Quote:
Taking money from the spenders and putting it into the savers doesn't make the economy work.

Who's taking money from someone else to save it? Anybody taking money is a thief and should be punished. Most of us trade something for money, or get something for our money. As for saving, what do you think banks do with money? Especially money from CD's and similar long term savings plans?

Quote:
If the economy is stagnant and isn't growing, businesses aren't going to hire people.

Correct. We have this plus inflation (mostly) from quantitative easing right now.
Stagflation

Both brought about by the same thing. I won't say, I'll let you think about it, partly because it's only loosely related.

Quote:
There is no point in continuously increasing production/services when the demand isn't there.

Are you talking about subsidies? Everything produced with subsidies is at a production that far outweighs demand - otherwise it would be turning a profit and ergo, not be subsidized. Production for things that aren't in demand, go away (in a free market) and that capital is transferred into things that are demanded.

A free market rarely subsidizes, and if it does, it's wholly subsidized by people who've all agreed to subsidize something.

Unfortunately we haven't really had a free market for about 80 years. We get a lot of subsidization that not everybody doing the subsidizing agrees about. This goes into the same loosely related thing from before.

Quote:
It's bad business sense and it's the kind of thing that if a company did, it deserved to fail.

I agree. Businesses should be allowed to fail. At the same time, they should be allowed to succeed - however high they go.

Quote:
The help needs to go towards getting the consumers spending, but instead the right has it ass backwards and wants to tax them more (increasing the payroll tax) while giving money to businesses...

I don't know where you're getting that from. There's heavy stigma against all taxing on the right at the moment.

Also, many payroll taxes are paid by the employer themselves, which would take money from business.


"Ok we aren't such things and birds are pretty advanced. They fly and shit from anywhere they want. While we sit on our automatic toilets, they're shitting on people and my car while a cool breeze tickles their anus. That's the life."
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:26 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Weena wrote:
Anything. It's called venturing. Someone comes up with something they think someone else will want, and they decide to produce it. If it turns out the market didn't want it, they stop producing it.

Are you talking about subsidies? Everything produced with subsidies is at a production that far outweighs demand - otherwise it would be turning a profit and ergo, not be subsidized. Production for things that aren't in demand, go away (in a free market) and that capital is transferred into things that are demanded.


This is false because of externalities. The price tag does not, and cannot, reflect all the costs of producing an item.

Also see: Impending seafood crash

Weena wrote:
Without production, what is there to demand?


"Man does not live by bread alone".

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story. The question isn't how much is being produced, cumulatively - it's a question of distribution, values, externalities.

Weena wrote:
What Eturnal is suggesting is simply making production easier, and easier to turn a profit with. I'm sure most of us have unmet demands because we don't have the money. Some of us even have no met demand, because we have no income. Demands that could be met, and would subsequently justify production, if we had income - income that stems from working somewhere that produces goods and services.


Red herring.

Again my point about Utopia. Gross output is not the issue. It hasn't been for centuries.

Weena wrote:
Who's taking money from someone else to save it? Anybody taking money is a thief and should be punished. Most of us trade something for money, or get something for our money. As for saving, what do you think banks do with money? Especially money from CD's and similar long term savings plans?


Why do you think interest rates are near-zero atm...and why isn't that getting the money moving?
What does that suggest about banks' willingness to move money?

Weena wrote:
A free market rarely subsidizes, and if it does, it's wholly subsidized by people who've all agreed to subsidize something.

Unfortunately we haven't really had a free market for about 80 years. We get a lot of subsidization that not everybody doing the subsidizing agrees about. This goes into the same loosely related thing from before.


There is no such thing as a free market in the sense you describe. A market is given definition by the regulations put upon it. Regulation was first implemented 80 years ago because it was necessary, and that "necessity" hasn't changed. The free market didn't exist 80 years ago because it didn't work.

Even before 80 years ago the government had structured the economy, assuming a monopoly on the printing of money.

And again, if "free markets" work, why, historically, have the most unstructured economies done the worst? Why has human progress and successful cultures always been associated with structuring their economy or incentivizing one product or another?

Weena wrote:
I agree. Businesses should be allowed to fail. At the same time, they should be allowed to succeed - however high they go.


What makes you think business is less prone to abuse its power than government?

Weena wrote:
Also, many payroll taxes are paid by the employer themselves, which would take money from business.


No, because whether the employer or the employee pays the tax, the cost is attached to the employer-employee contract. The employer promises the employee a certain level of material gain for being employed. Whomever "pays the tax" doesn't matter because either way, the tax gets paid, and the employee gets the same amount of money to spend. That amount will or will not be sufficient to his wants and needs, regardless of which end it comes out of.

If the employee is paying the tax, and he doesn't feel he has enough left over, the employer will have to pay more as the labor market will bear. Conversely, if the employer pays the tax, and the employee's wage is docked accordingly, he has the same amount of money to spend, and the employer is spending the same amount as if the employee were the one physically signing the check to Uncle Sam.

A) Employee for sale: $20/hr
B) Employee for sale: $15/hr, $5 mandatory labor tax

A) LF employee: $20/hr
B) LF employee: $15/hr, all taxes paid


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:17 pm  
User avatar

Fat Bottomed Faggot
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:53 pm
Posts: 4251
Location: Minnesota
Offline

Aestu wrote:
This is false because of externalities. The price tag does not, and cannot, reflect all the costs of producing an item.

Also see: Impending seafood crash

You're arguing environmental cost, yes?

I don't lose sleep over environmental regulation, I lose sleep over environmental regulation that trades perceived or not fully proven heavy impact on the environment for guaranteed heavy impact on industry.

There's a lot of regulation (in effect and could be in effect) that is good both for the environment as well as sustaining industries (which anybody in industry with a brain knows is a good thing). There's two things I dislike about many good regulations though:

They're done by the Federal Government, when they should be done by state governments, because of constitutionality reasons as well as practical reasons.

Sometimes it's people that aren't part of the industry paying for said regulations, due to generalizing funds. If I don't eat fish, why should I be beholden to making sure a fishing industry that has no effect on me is made sustainable, or an environment across the world is kept up? This is generally ties into the first part. Why should people from New York have to pay for something people in California benefit from?

Aestu wrote:
"Man does not live by bread alone".

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story. The question isn't how much is being produced, cumulatively - it's a question of distribution, values, externalities.

This is kind of avoiding the question.

Without production, you have nothing to demand. In which case, you get only what you yourself make - or produce. Now you're friend decides - hey you make this, I'll make that, and we'll trade extras with each other. You've created demand, you're now demanding this from your friend, and he's demand that from you. The simplest benefit to this, you're both making higher quality items because of increased practice and focus. If you both produce nothing - you don't have anything to demand.

Aestu wrote:
Red herring.

Again my point about Utopia. Gross output is not the issue. It hasn't been for centuries.

I don't know your point about 'Utopia'. Ergo I'm not entirely sure of the point.

Do you mean that production isn't always prosperity? Like in WWII? Where basically everyone had a job, but everybody was still scraping by?

If that's the case, you're right. But creating demand never brings about prosperity. I can demand all I want from my neighbor, but he's going to demand something back. Something I don't have without first producing.

Say he is producing something - he's going to demand something of me (if not to be prosperous, then to continue producing, if he is charitable, he's going to have to turn profit somewhere in order to remain charitable). If I'm not producing something to trade (whether it's money, time or service), he isn't getting anything from me, nor me from him, and the economy goes stale.

Aestu wrote:
There is no such thing as a free market in the sense you describe. A market is given definition by the regulations put upon it. Regulation was first implemented 80 years ago because it was necessary, and that "necessity" hasn't changed. The free market didn't exist 80 years ago because it didn't work.

Even before 80 years ago the government had structured the economy, assuming a monopoly on the printing of money.

The government took a monopoly on printing money, yes. A free market is where you aren't forced to spend money on anything, where all transaction is voluntary. This means voluntary on both ends - for both the consumer and producer. When government is the producer, you get a lot of involuntary transaction. Yes, roads are beneficial, yes most people use them, and we've done a pretty good job in making those transactions voluntary - gas tax - if you aren't driving, you aren't paying for roads, and the more you drive, the more wear on roads, the more you pay (at least was intended that way). Education - yes education is beneficial, yes everybody should be educated, but we've done a pretty bad job in making those transactions voluntary, to put it lightly.

I can argue that dictating how money should be spent (by public sector) only prolonged The Great Depression - that was caused by an artificial boom, something else you don't have with free markets - and such dictation is a major factor in prolonging this recession.

Aestu wrote:
What makes you think business is less prone to abuse its power than government?

What power does business have that isn't in some way shape or form through the government?

Government has a monopoly on force. A business can't force me to do anything without using government to do it. Most bad regulation is one business trying to stifle competition. Competition is a wonderful thing for consumers.

You limit government, you limit business by default.

Aestu wrote:
No, because whether the employer or the employee pays the tax, the cost is attached to the employer-employee contract. The employer promises the employee a certain level of material gain for being employed. Whomever "pays the tax" doesn't matter because either way, the tax gets paid, and the employee gets the same amount of money to spend. That amount will or will not be sufficient to his wants and needs, regardless of which end it comes out of.

If the employee is paying the tax, and he doesn't feel he has enough left over, the employer will have to pay more as the labor market will bear. Conversely, if the employer pays the tax, and the employee's wage is docked accordingly, he has the same amount of money to spend, and the employer is spending the same amount as if the employee were the one physically signing the check to Uncle Sam.

A) Employee for sale: $20/hr
B) Employee for sale: $15/hr, $5 mandatory labor tax

A) LF employee: $20/hr
B) LF employee: $15/hr, all taxes paid


Whether I'm right or wrong on that point, it sounds like we agree that payroll tax isn't a good thing, economics wise. Which sounds like what Dvergar is saying.

Ciiiiiiiiiiircle Jeeeeeeeerk.


"Ok we aren't such things and birds are pretty advanced. They fly and shit from anywhere they want. While we sit on our automatic toilets, they're shitting on people and my car while a cool breeze tickles their anus. That's the life."
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:28 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Aestu wrote:
What you are saying is, the Dems should have given into bullying.

The debate was not over any bill but the FEMA bill and the GOP decided to broaden the debate to include a topic that had nothing to do with FEMA, to make the Dems look bad when they refused to give in to political extortion.

All the more so since when the place and time DID come (a month ago) for a no-holds-barred debate over the future of public spending and Obama put everything on the table, the GOP refused to play ball.

The GOP insisted on arguing an issue when it wasn't appropriate then ducked a serious discussion when the time came because they were more interested in making the other side look bad than following the process in good faith.

And you wonder why nothing gets done.


Given how much completely unrelated bullshit ends up amended to pretty much every single bill in Congress, your complaint is nothing but sophistry. A majority of republicans didn't want to raise the debt ceiling, yet they voted to do so in exchange for spending cuts without a tax increase. To say that republicans 'refused to play ball' after they've made a compromise, merely because you've been conditioned to expect that "compromise" is republicans rolling completely over and doing what democrats want, and you don't like when they stand their ground...then I think you need to reflect yet again on who among us is really "brainwashed."

Aestu wrote:
For a democratic system to work, all players need to play by the rules in good faith. It is no coincidence that rule of law, which is integral to the democratic system, works the same way. A democratic system integrates diverse viewpoints via due process. Trial proves guilt or innocence; debate proves value or fraud.

The fact that OJ Simpson was "obviously" guilty doesn't legitimize short-circuiting the justice process any more than the "arguable" lack of merit of this spending legitimizes short-circuiting the democratic process.

That the spending was "arguably" bad was to be proven in the appropriate theater, not during the funding of unrelated emergency legislation.


Oh, you mean the way Obamacare was brought to the floor as a single issue and voted on? Oh, wait...that didn't happen. It was pushed through using reconciliation as a rider on a yearly budget. Again, like your earlier complaints about "unrelated budget items," you're only outraged about underhanded parliamentary procedures when the people using them don't share your views.

Aestu wrote:
That's fucking politics, dude. Pull your head out of your ass.

You think the GOP or tea party or any politicians, anywhere, ever, in the history of the world, don't do that?


"Your guys do it, too, so that makes it OK." Isn't that one of those retarded arguments Mayo always mocks?

Jubbergun wrote:
Um... actually no it doesn't. Like I said:
Discretionary budget is $660B.
Budget deficit is $1.5T.

Even if every such spending item (and both GOP and Dems have their pets, and many are bipartisan) were axed, it wouldn't be enough to close the deficit.

You might as well try to pay your utility bill by searching your drier for coins.


Even if cutting every bit of crap corporate welfare only reduced the discretionary budget by 10%, it would reduce the budget deficit to 1.45T. It doesn't sound like much put that way, but if you don't shorthand it, that's $500,000,000,000. Sure it's a drop in the buck as far as federal spending, but drops add up to gallons, and I'd need to find a lot fewer quarters in my dryer that way.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:25 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
To say that republicans 'refused to play ball' after they've made a compromise


loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

oh wait you were srs?

Jubs, they made NO compromise. In fact, compromise is a dirt word for the right. Giving up nothing but accepting a little less than you demanded is not compromise. Compromise would have been spending cuts + tax hikes, meaning each side would have got something they like in exchange for something they really don't like.

Also, did you see how long it took for them to "compromise"? That was crap.


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:57 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Fantastique wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
To say that republicans 'refused to play ball' after they've made a compromise


loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

oh wait you were srs?

Jubs, they made NO compromise. In fact, compromise is a dirt word for the right. Giving up nothing but accepting a little less than you demanded is not compromise. Compromise would have been spending cuts + tax hikes, meaning each side would have got something they like in exchange for something they really don't like.

Also, did you see how long it took for them to "compromise"? That was crap.


They did make a compromise. They raised the debt ceiling. In exchange, they asked for cuts to spending. If they had given up tax cuts as well, what was the other side going to offer in exchange? I don't think you have any idea what kind of bullshit Boehner had to deal with just getting his party to sign on to the deal he finally managed to broker. You can only say it's not a compromise if you completely disregard the 180 a lot of house republicans had to make to support just the debt ceiling increase. It's a miracle that it happened, but it wasn't one President Obama was helping along by insisting on tax increases...oh, sorry, I believe "job killing" tax increases was how he used to refer to them before it became a pissing contest and his ego and political fortunes became attached. I think too many of you have become far too accustomed to "compromise" being republicans caving to everything dems want.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:39 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 3686
Location: Potomac, MD
Offline

Raising the debt ceiling did us no "favors," it was something that had to be done. For both sides. For the country. Period. Letting the gov't default is not an option, therefore they really did not give up anything. By no means does compromise mean republicans "caving." It does require them to pull their heads out of their asses, and lord knows that's hard to make them do.


[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:39 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

I'm not a partisan, Jubber. I didn't say or imply the Dems don't play horse-trading. I'm just saying the article was a ridiculous spin and your belief that the GOP is superior in this department is absurd.


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:40 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Fantastique wrote:
Raising the debt ceiling did us no "favors," it was something that had to be done. For both sides. For the country. Period. Letting the gov't default is not an option, therefore they really did not give up anything. By no means does compromise mean republicans "caving." It does require them to pull their heads out of their asses, and lord knows that's hard to make them do.


Well, that's where we'll have to disagree, my good friend, because I don't believe it was something that "had to be done." All the 'what if' discussions leading up to the will-it-happen moment(s) that I saw on television had pundits on both sides saying that while a deal should be/had to be done, if there wasn't one, the treasury would simply have to prioritize payments. I think that would have been a precarious position for both parties, but what's good for the political parties isn't necessarily what's best for the country. When you've been borrowing every year since...Dear God, how long have we been doing this? When you've been living above your means for as long as we have, something has to give, and that something has to be spending. I've watched too many "we'll cut spending if you raise taxes" deals where the spending cuts never materialized, going back as far as my childhood when Reagan cut one of those deals in the 80s. After 30+ years, some idiots have finally realized the only way you're going to actually get the spending cuts is by forcing them down with a little sugar (sugar in this case being the debt ceiling increase). When you toss in tax increases with the spending cuts, what inevitably happens is that the taxes go up, but the spending never comes down.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:51 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Aestu wrote:
I'm not a partisan, Jubber. I didn't say or imply the Dems don't play horse-trading. I'm just saying the article was a ridiculous spin and your belief that the GOP is superior in this department is absurd.


I don't believe I ever said the republicans were any less guilty of this sort of asinine chicanery, but when I suggest that those of you who are always complaining about how republicans are always out for big business and love their corporate welfare should be more than a little annoyed at your emissaries in DC because they're doing what you hate so much about republicans, your responses (republicans holding things up--as if they're the only participants and some other folks couldn't let it go--and excuses about legislative procedure both sides have been using since time immemorial among others) have been nothing but partisan...especially your "well you guys do it, too" bits.

The point was not "democrats are bad," the point is that when the guys on 'your side' are fucking up and doing the things we are constantly being told make republicans bad, I expected to see a bit of "yeah, that's not cool, why are the guys we voted for doing that?" I'm usually one of the first ones here to admit when the people on 'my side' aren't living by the code...but I'm beginning to think that's because my ideas about what's right and wrong are guided by something a little deeper than the sort of outcome-based "it's OK to do it if everything turns out good" pseudo-morality I see reflected around me far too often.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:10 am  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:19 pm
Posts: 8116
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
I don't believe I ever said the republicans were any less guilty of this sort of asinine chicanery

Jubbergun wrote:
It's hard not to blame the democrat officials involved with being guilty of partisanship when it's clear that certain members of their party are trading favors (or did you miss the part about how Joe Biden was funneling all this back home to Delaware?). Thinking that the "bad guys" are in the wrong despite ample evidence that your white hats are up to shenanigans...


If A = dems and B = GOP

A = guilty
B = not less guilty

A </ B

Therefore, your claim that your side is right or more right is not logical.

Jubbergun wrote:
The point was not "democrats are bad," the point is that when the guys on 'your side' are fucking up and doing the things we are constantly being told make republicans bad, I expected to see a bit of "yeah, that's not cool, why are the guys we voted for doing that?" I'm usually one of the first ones here to admit when the people on 'my side' aren't living by the code...but I'm beginning to think that's because my ideas about what's right and wrong are guided by something a little deeper than the sort of outcome-based "it's OK to do it if everything turns out good" pseudo-morality I see reflected around me far too often.


So, the point isn't "this side is bad" it's that..."this side is bad".
Never mind that I just said I don't have a "side".

Quote:
Brainwashing And You: When Black Is White & White Is Black


"Our misdeeds are justified because the other side is committing misdeeds and we know because we are justified in committing misdeeds against the other sides because of the misdeeds they commit..."

Like all circular logic, it can unraveled by examining the underlying premise independently.

The article described GOP efforts to subvert the budget process and hold up an emergency aid bill. The fact that they tried to twist this around as the Dems fault is sufficient to prove bad faith.

If the GOP were not proceeding in bad faith, why would the GOP insist on engaging the issue during a time of crisis and not engage the issue at the appropriate time?


Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group