Conservative or LiberalFollow

While I'm flattered that you chose to name your cigar store indian's fist after me, I'm sorry to say that unlike that happy inert chunk of wood that you grease up daily before lowering yourself from the ceiling using a block and tackle onto it screaming "yea, Smasharoo!!! Harder!!!" I am not gay.

Please, call someone before you do something foolish upon hearing this news. I'd hate to be responsible for the suicide of a young confused special needs student.

Ok dummy. Every president has "spent more then any President in history". Every single year's budget as far back as the online CBO figures go has been larger then the previous year's. That is the most completely meaningless statement you can possibly make.

"generated the largest national debt" is also misleading. It's a cumulative figure Smash. Since the "national debt" is the accumulation of every penny that every administration has every borrowed, even if he'd only added 1 dollar to that figure, your statement would be true. It's not as totally meaningless as the first one, but close.

A better statement would be that he generated a larger deficit then any other president. Which isn't true, doubly so if you use adjusted dollars (which you should) and tripply so if you relate deficit to GNP. But complex economic concepts like addition, subtraction and division are too confusing for you I guess...

Finally, I'm almost positive that a "surplus" doesn't carry over from year to year (I'd have to reload the numbers and look, but I don't remember seeing that when I looked last time). So Bush did not "start with a surplus". His deficit numbers are a direct comparion between the amount he taxed, and the amount he spent (there's that complex subtraction thing for ya!). Also, most of the deficit he did generate came as a result of huge tax cuts, not huge increases in spending (although he did increase spending, as every president has).

Clinton ran record high tax rates. Bush has run record *low* tax rates. That "surplus" that Clinton had was *our* money that he overtaxed in the first place. The "deficit" that Bush is runing is *our* money as well. If he taxes 600B less in 2003, and runs a 600B deficit, it's we who have 600B more dollars in our economy to generate jobs and new products as a result. Yes, we have to pay it back at some point, but borrowing money to invest in the economy when we're in a recession and interest rates are low is a pretty solid economic move.

I tend to agree that the deficit spending is a bit higher then it should be, but it's not the disaster you make it out to be.


One more thing. You can't just redefine the term entitlement to suit your needs on the fly. Take a freaking econ course, just once in your life! Entitlement is spending that goes into the consumption part of the equation. So when you give money to people so they can buy stuff (typically wellfare and assistance type programs), you are spending money on entitlement. Contracts to businessess goes in the investment side part of the equation. So giving money to a company so they can design a new widget is *not* entitlement spending. Arguing that they are the same thing is not only wrong, but shows you lack even the most vague understanding of economics.

I am fiscally conservative because I understand the difference between those two types of spending and how they effect the health of an economy down the line. I understand that entitlement spending increases the size of each individual's slice of the pie today. I also understand that investment spending increases the total size of the pie tomorrow. If you don't understand that fundamental difference, then I can understand how you might think that Republican economic plans are "bad". But that's your lack of understanding, not mine. It never ceases to amaze me that someone so blatantly ignorant of some of the most basic economic concepts will continue to argue the issue so vehemently. Maybe you seem really impressive to other ignorant people, but to me, you're like the backwood hick trying to discuss ballet. You just reinforce your ignorance everytime you argue this topic. Like I said: Amazing.

Edited, Thu May 27 21:33:11 2004 by gbaji

Soooo, what you're teling us is that you're not gay? Huh.

Totem

Which one of you two is in the Republican party again?

Oops, I win again.

You poor thing. So overmatched.

I put it towards my $2,000 donation to Kerry.

Nah, I got play poker with the best players in the world for a mere 10k (which I won in a $1000 ten seat satalite anyway).

On the other hand I did loose a few mortgage payments at the Bellagio. It's so pretty there, though, with the painted on sky and all. IT DISTRACTED ME!!

I keep carefull records of my poker play, and even factoring in hotel rooms and travel and whatnot, I'm still about +$15000 for my "career" since I started playing casino/online games about two years ago.

That's nothing to write home about, naturally, it works out to about $12 an hour, which is the going rate for McDonalds night shift workers in MA.

I'll use small words so you can understand this.

The Medicare drug benefit ENTITLEMENT, also known as The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law on December 8, 2003.

With me so far?

This ENTITLEMENT provides money to citizens to pay for perscription drugs. It is, by the way, far and away the largest entitlement package enacted in the last quarter century.

The ENTITLEMENT in question, rather than allowing the government agency to negoiate with drug companies to provide the most efficent use of the funds being spent over 500 BILLION in the next decade by the way expressly prohibits the government from paying anything but full retail price for any of the perscription medications in question.

Being that this ENTITLEMENT will be, easily, the largest puchaser of perscription medications in the nation, this lack of ability to negoiate for price is not only contrary to the free market economic theories espoused by the people who advocated for it, but it also essentially GUARANTEES LARGE PROFITS FOR DRUG COMPANIES WITHOUT ANY COMPETETIVE MARKET FORCES ON PRICE.

Therefore, when I say:



It is the above captioned ENTITLEMENT I am refering to.

I foolishly operate under the assumption that readers of my posts are reasonably knowledgible about current events, particularly if they choose to discuss them with me, and therefore don't feel obligated to have to specify what
I'm refering to when I speak of an ENTITLEMENT that benefits drug companies.

I daresay you're the single person who read my post that wasn't up to speed enough to understand the clear and simple referance.

I say clear and simple for a few reasons.

1) It's the onle ENTITLEMENT passed by this administration, so were you pondering what I could be referring to there wouldn't be too many options to befudle your tiny little mind.

2) It's an ENTITLEMENT that deals expressly with DRUG COMPANIES. Now, one would think after reading my statement, the average person would ask themselves "Gee, what's happened in relation to Drug Companies during this administration? Golly, there was that massive half trillion ENTITLEMENT passed, could that be it?

3) Typing "entitlement drug companies" into Google yeilds the following:

http://www.google.com/search?q=entitlement+drug+companies&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Many, many links all refrencing...you guessed it!! That's right, The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

Forgive me for not specifying in my post that I was refering to The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, but again, I assume a certain level of competence you clearly do not posses.

In the future with my discussion with you I will endevour to fill in all the cracks in your swiss cheese like knowledge of this country. Pardon me, when I say "this country" I'm refering to the United States of America.

In case you were confused.

Idiot.

Just because somebody is a better flamer doesn't mean he knows jack sh*t about anything outside of Neverland.

I knew without asking who the Libs (communists, socialists, etc) were just by the posts I have read the last month or so on all the boards, thanks for confirming it :).

By the way, mark me as another conservative not "totally enraged" by Mr. Bush. Actually, I thank God (!) every day that Algore is not my leader. No one could pull me out from under my bed if that was the case.............

What's really funny is that deep down you know this Smash. Let me guess! Your reason for disliking the bill boes something like this:

"Damn those Republicans, even though they *say* it's an entitlement bill, it's really just a bill to put money into the hands of big phamacutical companies!".

Um... Duh! That's why it's not really an entitlemet bill. Deep down, you know this. But you'll argue on the semantics used instead. Odd. Seems to me that a bill that will provide more medical care to the people, while ensuring that the money ends up back in the Investment part of the economy is a good thing all the way around.

Are you oppposed to it because the Republicans have come up with a way to improve medical care *and* the economy at the same time? I suppose you'd prefer the liberal approach of just throwing money at the one end of the problem and hoping everything will just magically work out.

You've made the same mistake the flish made a few months ago. You've assumed that "Conservative" means "spending less money". . It's really not that simple. What matters the most is *how* that money is spent.

You slam Bush's policies *and* label yourself a Liberal.


Yes, how terribly inconsistent of me.


Yet you *also* argue that Conservatives shouldn't like Bush's policies becuase they include "entitlement"

Correct.


Which is it Smash?

It's both, you idiot. Let me spell this out for you s-l-o-w-l-y.

*I* disagree with Bush's economic policies because I believe there should be a higher tax rate, and more government servcies, and more importnatly less debt.

*You* should as fiscal conservative disagree with his economic policies BECAUSE HE'S RECKLESSLY OVERSPENDING.



Are his policies Conservative or Liberal? If they are Liberal, then why are you slaming them? The fact that you *are* slaming them is a pretty good indicator that despite the fact that the "word" entitlement is used, they are actually Conservative fiscal policies.

I realize you're a very simple man, and that you see the world through a very simple lens, but surely you can hold the notion in your mind that it's possible for a President to iniate policies disliked by BOTH liberals and conservatives? I hope? Let's go over it again.

*I* don't like the policies because the tax rate is far too low and I'd like to see more government services.

*You* shouldn't like them because the spending is too high and it mitigates the entire theory of providing tax cuts structured the way they are which is to generate the same level of revenue as before the tax cuts via overall growth of the whole economy.

The positions ARE NOT mutually exlusive. Taken to a metaphorical extreme, if Bush eliminated taxes entirely, but spend 900 Quadrillion on an annual budget can you comprehend how both the left and the right would consider it foolish?

CAN YOU COMPREHEND IT SKIPPY???

CAN
I
GET
AN
AMEN!!???

Anyone? Can anyone grasp this concept?



I've honestly done very little looking into that particular Medicare bill.


The hell you say! Why I would have bet $100,000 that you were well versed in it. Ok, maybe not, I did read your post.



Buth then, the only place I've even heard of it is from you, a few times, on this site. Odd, that the first I've heard of a bill that I should be opposed to is from an admitted rabid liberal.

Yeah, look, I know I post a lot on political issues, and I ABSOLUTELY posted a ton on that one. But, honestly. I simply can't be responsible for your ignorance. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of the most signifigant increase in federal spending in a decade or that you somehow avoided the massive fight on the hill over the bill and the fillabuster and the underhanded tactical ploy that got it to a vote.

Not my fault.

Untill you start paying me, I'm not your current events tutor, or your clipping service.

You should be thrilled with the free lessons in economics.

Ok, look. Let me know if this isn't your argumet.

Paying *more than the market rate* for products using taxpayer money is good becuase pharmacutical compaines will get the money in the end and the happy economic fairly will make that good for the economy or whatever your endpoint is.

So essentially, regardless of how much the government overpays for something it's irrelivant so long as that money goes to company profits.

Is that correct?