Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Warren said....Follow

#152 Aug 24 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
The point gbaji is making is that any spending by the GOP is good, but any spending done by the Dems is bad. Even though the GOP is supposed to be all about less spending and smaller government, etc.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#153 Aug 24 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I think you missed the point I'm making (or are sidestepping it). I'm not comparing Bush's spending in 2008 to Obama's spending in 2009/2010. I'm looking at four recessionary cycles which have occurred in the last 30 years and comparing them.


A general question

You hear a lot of people say this is the 'worst downturn since the great depression' wouldn't it make more sense for the various reactions (both market-based and government) to the downturn to be greater then in the previous cycles, and more akin to what we saw in the great depression?


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In 1989, the S&L crisis was billed as the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression. We spent just enough money to bail out the banks, a small amount of stimulus to make people feel good, and the economy recovered. A few years later, no one even thought about it. The point being that there's always a lot of rhetoric that gets tossed around, largely because there really is a need to take some direct action to fix the problem and so you need to make the public realize how important it it. It's dangerous when those doing the rhetoric forget this though and actually buy their own "sky is falling" story.

When we set the rhetoric aside and look at the numbers, we can say that financially the most recent crisis was larger than others. That's in terms of the sheer numbers of dollars of assets at risk. But in terms of the immediate impact on other economic indicators? It wasn't really out of bounds relatively speaking. When we look at relative lost revenue and relative GDP growth loss it was actually pretty similar to other recessionary crises.

As I keep trying to point out the really glaring difference isn't in the formation of the crisis, but in what happened *after* it happened. There are two major problems with our economy right now: Unemployment and debt. Those can both be logically tied together. High debt raises the fear of higher taxes, which reduces the amount of employment based investment in the economy. It's a simple and (dare I say it?) obvious relationship. The debt can be directly tied to spending. As I've said, if we look just at revenue loss, this recession was similar to others. Between 2001 and 2003 our revenue as a percentage of GDP dropped from 19.5 to 16.2, or 3.3 points. Between 2007 and 2009, it dropped from 18.5 to 14.9, or 3.6%.


Despite nearly identical relative revenue drops over identical periods of time, in one case, we recovered quickly, while in the other we are not. The difference? Spending.

During that same time period (2001 to 2003), spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 18.2 to 19.7, or 1.5 points. Between 2007 and 2009, spending increased from 19.6 to 25. That's an increase of 5.4% of GDP. It's absolutely massive. This is why we conservatives keep saying over and over that this is not a revenue problem. It's a spending problem.


I can toss out similar numbers for past recession-causing crises:

Between 1981 and 1983, revenue dropped from 19.6 to 17.5 (2.1%). Spending increased from 22.2 to 23.5 (2.3%). We recovered quickly.

Between 1989 and 1992 (S*L crisis actually was a slower burn, so it was 3 years from low to high unemployment effects), revenue dropped from 18.4 to 17.5 (.9%). Spending increased from 21.2 to 22.1 (.9%). We recovered quickly.

What this shows is that varying levels of revenue drop didn't make much difference in terms of recovery. Spending also doesn't seem to make much difference as long as the increase is modest. The one glaring exception is the one time we had significantly higher relative spending increase (5.4% of GDP between 2007 and 2009), we had an anemic recovery and unemployment stayed high.


I'm aware that correlation is not the same as causation, but when there's a pretty rational explanation for why a factor like spending might slow down economic recovery (especially in the domestic job market), and when we look at the data we see exactly that correlation, that's a pretty strong case that said factor *is* the cause of the result we're seeing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Aug 24 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Debalic wrote:
The point gbaji is making is that any spending by the GOP is good, but any spending done by the Dems is bad. Even though the GOP is supposed to be all about less spending and smaller government, etc.


No. My point is that any spending increase that is modest will allow for a speedy economic recovery while spending that is too high will *not* allow for a speedy economic recovery. Which party does which doesn't make any difference. The facts though, show that when the GOP is in charge of congress, spending during a recession-causing crisis tends to be lower than when the Dems are in control of congress.


And, of course, when the Dems control both congress and the white house, we get the utter disaster we're in right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Aug 24 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
39 posts
Everyone is worried about closing the deficit entirely. That is a lofty, unnecessary goal. Returning the top tax rate to Clinton-era-rates would generate the greatest revenue. Nothing we can do will shore the entire deficit up.
#156 Aug 24 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Gbaji wrote:
I think you missed the point I'm making (or are sidestepping it). I'm not comparing Bush's spending in 2008 to Obama's spending in 2009/2010. I'm looking at four recessionary cycles which have occurred in the last 30 years and comparing them. I'm making note that in 3 of the four cycles, spending during the recession itself increased only modestly, but in one spending increased dramatically. I'm then noting that in the first three cases, the recession turned around almost like clockwork right around 2 years after starting, but in the fourth case, the one in which spending increased dramatically instead of modestly, that hasn't happened. Unemployment specifically has remained high, when in all the others you can see a very clear reversal.


You're not comparing Bush & Obama's stimulus spending because you're a partisan hack.

Anyhoo, since the most recent recession is said to be the worst since the great depression, what got us out of the great Depression? The New Deal. What happened when the Conservative Coalition rolled back some of those policies? It HURT the recovery.

Just like NOT raising taxes (Which was done on businesses back during the New Deal) on the debt ceiling deal is currently hurting the economy!!!



____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#157 Aug 24 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
decayed wrote:
Everyone is worried about closing the deficit entirely. That is a lofty, unnecessary goal. Returning the top tax rate to Clinton-era-rates would generate the greatest revenue.


Wouldn't raising the top tax rate even higher generate even more revenue? Why stop there?

The question isn't whether something would increase revenue, but whether that's the right solution in the first place. I don't believe that it is. Lowering tax rates didn't create our current economic problems, so why think that raising them would fix them?


More to the point, historically speaking changes in the top marginal rate has only a very very loose relationship with actual relative tax revenue as a whole. Let me throw a ton of data at you: For most of the 70s, we had a top rate of 70%, and revenues ranged between 17.1% of GDP to 19% of GDP. From 1981 to 1986 we had a top rate of 50%, and revenue ranged between 19.6% to 17.5%. From 1986 to 1990 the rate was 28%, and revenue ranged from 17.5% to 18%. From 90 to 92, it went up to 30%, and revenues ranged from 18% to 17.5%. From 1992 to 2000 the top rate jumped up to 40%, and revenue ranged from 17.5% to 20.6%. From 2000 to 2002 it dropped to 38% and revenues ranged from 20.6% to 17.6%. From 2002 to today rates have been at 35% and revenue has ranged from a low of 14.9% (during 2009/2010 btw), to a high of 18.5% (in 2007).


There's little correlation. Sometimes, raising rates decreased revenue, sometimes it raised it. Sometimes lowering rates lowered revenue, sometimes it raised it. It's far easier to correlate recessionary cycles to lower relative revenue than it is to correlate top marginal rate to the same. The last decade is a great example of this. Bush lowered rates over the first two years of his terms from 40% to 35% (certainly not one of the bigger rate shifts). Revenue dropped significantly, but remember that we also had a recession starting right at that point. We went from a 40+ year high point revenue wise (20.6%) to around 16% in those first 2-3 years. But after that, despite the tax rates remaining unchanged, revenues increased until 2007 when it was 18.5% (which is in the top 25% in terms of revenue collection over the previous 40 years. Revenues dropped after that point, but clearly because of the economic crisis and *not* because of tax rates. The trend during Bush's term was higher tax revenue even with the rate at a relative low point.


Rates don't really correlate to actual generated revenue. What the rate does do, however, is affect the degree to which those with money are likely to work to avoid paying those rates. It's a question of whether you want more economic activity which less taxes levied on each, or less economic activity with higher taxes levied on each. Personally, I think that the former is better for us. It'll create more jobs even if it does nothing else (more economic activity is going to usually also translate to more jobs, everything else staying the same).


I just think that you're asking the wrong question.


Quote:
Nothing we can do will shore the entire deficit up.


We don't have to shore the entire deficit up. Just enough of it so that the debt being accrued isn't ruinous in the long run. Raising taxes is an iffy proposition in terms of actually increasing that revenue. The most consistent effect we can expect from that is lower employment (as I've argued in this thread, we're already seeing that effect just from the threat of higher taxes). Cutting spending is guaranteed to decrease that deficit and wont hurt us in terms of jobs. And in some cases, it will actually help us. Ending the ridiculously long extension of unemployment benefits is an obvious case. In a recovery phase of a recession you need people working. Even if they initially end out working at a job that doesn't pay as much, at least they are working and producing something. This will spur economic growth and help recover the economy to the point where they can get a job more equivalent pay-wise to what they had pre-crash. But as long as we keep paying them not to work, they are more likely to choose to remain not working rather than accept a job that represents a significant pay cut. Doubly so if that job isn't much better than what they can get on unemployment.


We don't need to close the deficit gap. What we need to do is stop shooting ourselves in the foot with misguided attempts to "fix the economy" by spending more money. It's the wrong approach.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Aug 24 2011 at 9:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:

You're not comparing Bush & Obama's stimulus spending because you're a partisan hack.


I'm comparing Bush's spending in 2001 to Obama's spending in 2009 because that's relevant to the question at hand (why did we recover from the first recession, but not the second). What you are insisting I compare *isn't* relevant.

Can you agree that Obama choose to spend money on stimulus *after* TARP was passed? Can you agree that he fully knew how much TARP cost at the time? So the responsibility for him spending more money is wholly his, right? And if the problem we're having is that we spent too much money, then no amount of pointing at TARP excuses Obama from taking the brunt of that blame. I guess I'm just not sure what you're trying to argue here. You're making no sense.

Quote:
Anyhoo, since the most recent recession is said to be the worst since the great depression, what got us out of the great Depression? The New Deal.


Nope. That's what liberals have taught you though. So great job showing your indoctrination. There is zero evidence that the New Deal did anything to hasten the end of the Great Depression. There are many economists (conservatives of course) who argue that the New Deal actually made the Great Depression worse and lengthened it by the better part of a decade.

It wasn't until FDR and the Democrats actually got sufficient push back from Conservatives (in both parties) in the late 30s that things started to turn around.

Quote:
What happened when the Conservative Coalition rolled back some of those policies? It HURT the recovery.


Which is interesting given that the actual recovery from a Depression state occurred after said Coalition formed. While there were on paper gains through the 30s, the economy was running on debt (much like the Dems are trying to do now). An economy which is dependent on constant government intervention is *not* a healthy sustainable economy. Only when the private sectors of the economy are able to provide sufficient jobs and wealth to create economic growth will you really get out of the woods.

And that didn't happen until after the Dems influence on such things began to wane.

Quote:
Just like NOT raising taxes (Which was done on businesses back during the New Deal) on the debt ceiling deal is currently hurting the economy!!!



Yeah. Parroting a talking point doesn't make it true. I'll point out again that actual tax rates really do have very little to do with the resulting revenue. Raising the top rate from 25% to 90% during the Great Depression didn't have any real effect on federal revenues at all. But some people (like myself) argue that what it did do was discourage economic activity which might put some wealthy person into that rate. So the government kept borrowing money to make it look like things were getting better, all while really making things worse.


Same things going on here. The Dems are spending tons of borrowed money on things which aren't helping the economy. On paper, they can talk about jobs "saved or created", but it's BS. An economy isn't really recovered until it's able to stand on its own without needing the government to prop it up. I'd explain why, but it should be obvious. It's the private market which pays the taxes. So as long as the portion of our economic figures which is generated by government spending grows relative to the portion of those figures which is generated by the private market, what you're really doing is increasing the costs, while decreasing that which pays for it. That's simply not sustainable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#159 Aug 25 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What you are insisting I compare *isn't* relevant.
[...]
Parroting a talking point doesn't make it true.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Aug 25 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Can you agree that Obama choose to spend money on stimulus *after* TARP was passed? Can you agree that he fully knew how much TARP cost at the time? So the responsibility for him spending more money is wholly his, right?


No. I'm not suggesting there wasn't a colossal amount of waste involved with either TARP nor Obama's stimulus, but TARP really only helped the people who fucked over economy in the first place & helped the rest of us, who were REALLY effected, not get fucked over more. Granted, some of TARPs has been paid back- but it's the least the bastards could do for Dubya saving their asses.

Dubya chose to save the banks, lenders, & insurers while Obama's saved the unemployed, saved some states from going bankrupt, kept up some infrastructure, & gave some tax breaks. One helped wallstreet, one helped everyone else: And they cost roughly the same.

Both were wasteful, both were necessary, both increased the deficit almost the same amount- though some of TARP's has been paid back. However, TARP created virtually no jobs while Obama's created some that, granted, can only be sustained while there's still stimulus money to spend.

Both have their pluses & minuses, both were wasteful, both are necessary to recover from the current recession.

The New Deal was also necessary to recover from the Great Depression. It got us to WWII when fat Gov. contracts got the economy going again. Pretending it wasn't is silly, even for you Gbaji.

Gbaji wrote:
. Raising the top rate from 25% to 90% during the Great Depression didn't have any real effect on federal revenues at all. But some people (like myself) argue that what it did do was discourage economic activity which might put some wealthy person into that rate.


I'll grant you, people will certainly try & figure out ways around paying their true amount of taxes: A Capitalist isn't going to purposefully try NOT to make more money. What're you, a god damn socialist?

Gbaji wrote:
An economy isn't really recovered until it's able to stand on its own without needing the government to prop it up.


I agree. If it's not recovering by the time the stimulus money starts running out it's going to get worse before it gets better, again.

Our economy is in trouble, but it HAD started to recover. This credit downgrade @#%^ed over the world economy, but hopefully, it's just a hiccup. If the debt deal had included the return to the tax rates on the "rich" that Warren talked about; there's a chance the USA wouldn't have been downgraded & this "hiccup" wouldn't have happened.

While I'm sure @#%^ing over the economy again wasn't the intent of the perpetually campaigning morons whom got the debt ceiling passed, that's what they did. Some, like "let's default!" Bachman, were stupider than others. They very easily could have compromised, but chose not too.

By any way you look at it: raising taxes while cutting spending would have been a better fix to the debt ceiling deal.

This is a fact.

It may also have had the benefit of not causing the S&P downgrade that lead to the recent economic recovery "hiccup".

That is speculation.

But maybe, just maybe, the recent investigation into S&P's mortgage ratings will lead to a conviction, which would be the first one, of someone directly related to causing the current recession in the first place.

That is probably fantasy.



Edited, Aug 25th 2011 12:17pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#161 Aug 25 2011 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can you agree that Obama choose to spend money on stimulus *after* TARP was passed? Can you agree that he fully knew how much TARP cost at the time? So the responsibility for him spending more money is wholly his, right?


No.


What do you mean "No"? He spent that money fully aware of how much money had already been spent on TARP. I'm not sure how you justify absolving him of the responsibility of the choice to spend more money even over the complete objection of the GOP.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting there wasn't a colossal amount of waste involved with either TARP nor Obama's stimulus, but TARP really only helped the people who fucked over economy in the first place & helped the rest of us, who were REALLY effected, not get fucked over more.


That's irrelevant in the context of "who put us into the current debt crisis", isn't it? But for the record, the kind of spending in TARP (more or less) is the same kind of spending we do every time there's this sort of economic crash. And it generally works. Or at least it has in the past. Why blame TARP for this? It's just strange that you seem to want to make this spending equivalent to the spending that came after, when there really is no comparison between the two.

Quote:
Granted, some of TARPs has been paid back- but it's the least the bastards could do for Dubya saving their asses.


Stop downplaying this. 100% of the TARP money lent to the financial sector has been paid back. 100%. Not "some", "all". The only TARP money that hasn't been fully paid back is about $25B of the money the Democrats inserted into the bill which went to bail out the auto industry and in an extreme example of "wtf!?" to shovel some money to teachers unions. In fact, those are about $60B short IIRC, the reason the full bill is only $25B short is because of the interest paid on the debt that was paid. So the big evil rich people not only paid back all the money they borrowed, they paid for some of the money the Dems handed out to their buddies as well.

Quote:
Dubya chose to save the banks, lenders, & insurers while Obama's saved the unemployed, saved some states from going bankrupt, kept up some infrastructure, & gave some tax breaks. One helped wallstreet, one helped everyone else: And they cost roughly the same.


No, they didn't cost roughly the same. They cost nowhere near the same. In terms of effect on our debt, Obama's spending has added about 50 times more debt than Bush's spending. Want to know why? Because the stimulus money isn't getting paid back. It's just spending. We can only measure its value based on the economic recovery it promised to deliver.

Do you think the economy has fully recovered? Did we get a trillion and a half dollars worth of recovery? I don't think so.

Quote:
Both were wasteful, both were necessary...


Wrong. TARP was necessary. A small amount of direct stimulus might have been helpful and wouldn't have hurt. The massive spending on stimulus done after we'd already spent money on TARP was completely unnecessary.


Quote:
... both increased the deficit almost the same amount


No, they didn't! Holy hell! Do you just make stuff up. The total remaining balance of TARP to be paid back is $25B.


Quote:
... though some of TARP's has been paid back.



Lol!


Quote:
However, TARP created virtually no jobs while Obama's created some that, granted, can only be sustained while there's still stimulus money to spend.


Can we please stop talking about job creation when net unemployment rose between the time the recovery act was passed and today? That's just silly.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
. Raising the top rate from 25% to 90% during the Great Depression didn't have any real effect on federal revenues at all. But some people (like myself) argue that what it did do was discourage economic activity which might put some wealthy person into that rate.


I'll grant you, people will certainly try & figure out ways around paying their true amount of taxes: A Capitalist isn't going to purposefully try NOT to make more money. What're you, a god damn socialist?


Nope. I'm pointing out a reality. I don't think it's wrong for people to avoid paying that top rate if they can. That's why I argue that it's wrong to think that by raising it, we'll magically fix all our problems. If history is any indicator, we'll just make them worse.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
An economy isn't really recovered until it's able to stand on its own without needing the government to prop it up.


I agree. If it's not recovering by the time the stimulus money starts running out it's going to get worse before it gets better, again.


Sigh...

The stimulus money is the problem. It's why the economy isn't recovering. I keep trying to explain this to you, but you aren't listening.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Aug 25 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Had to head to a meeting, so I split my replies:

Omegavegeta wrote:
Our economy is in trouble, but it HAD started to recover. This credit downgrade @#%^ed over the world economy, but hopefully, it's just a hiccup. If the debt deal had included the return to the tax rates on the "rich" that Warren talked about; there's a chance the USA wouldn't have been downgraded & this "hiccup" wouldn't have happened.


That's not true at all. And you're also continuing to assume that simply raising tax rates will significantly increase revenue. That's incredibly short sighted. In an economy where business is already not putting enough money into job creation, the negatives of raising taxes far outweigh any positives. We would at best trade one problem for yet another, and in all likelihood not do much about the first problem either.

Quote:
While I'm sure @#%^ing over the economy again wasn't the intent of the perpetually campaigning morons whom got the debt ceiling passed, that's what they did. Some, like "let's default!" Bachman, were stupider than others. They very easily could have compromised, but chose not too.


Lol! There's lots of harmful things politicians can do. I like that some of them occasionally choose not to though.

Quote:
By any way you look at it: raising taxes while cutting spending would have been a better fix to the debt ceiling deal.

This is a fact.


No. That's an opinion. One I and a whole hell of a lot of people disagree with.

Quote:
It may also have had the benefit of not causing the S&P downgrade that lead to the recent economic recovery "hiccup".

That is speculation.


They both are. YOu're also being short sighted. It might have prevented the immediate downgrade, but would have caused worse problems down the line.

That's my opinion. Let's also not forget that we wouldn't be in a position to be downgraded in the first place, if the Dems hadn't spent more money than we could afford. Isn't it absurd to absolve those who spent more than we could afford and instead blame those who refuse to raise taxes to pay for it? I think so.

But that's also just an opinion.

Quote:
But maybe, just maybe, the recent investigation into S&P's mortgage ratings will lead to a conviction, which would be the first one, of someone directly related to causing the current recession in the first place.


Get back to me when we jail Barney Frank.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Aug 25 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ah, yes, Barney Frank's reign of terror in 2005 when the Republicans were helpless to stop him, controlling only the House, Senate and Executive branch of government. What a monster he must have been to single-handedly defeat all who opposed him and force the government to bend to his whims against their every desire.

Golly, I heard some people were scared of being called a racist and so were powerless to act!

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 2:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Aug 25 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ah, yes, Barney Frank's reign of terror in 2005 when the Republicans were helpless to stop him, controlling only the House, Senate and Executive branch of government. What a monster he must have been to single-handedly defeat all who opposed him and force the government to bend to his whims against their every desire.


If we're talking about jailing people at ratings agencies like S&P for telling people that mortgage backed securities were safe when they really weren't, why not talk about jailing Frank who told people that there was no reason to investigate the issue to see if ratings agencies like S&P were really telling us the truth.

Quote:
Golly, I heard some people were scared of being called a racist and so were powerless to act!


So you blame the people who didn't act because they were threatened if they did, and *not* the guy who threatened them? That seems... odd. So if someone walked into a bank with a note saying that he had a bomb and would blow up the bank if the tellers didn't give him the money, you'd blame the tellers and not the guy threatening them?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#165 Aug 25 2011 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you blame the people who didn't act because they were threatened

Of course I am. They were the people in charge. There was no "bomb" and it's pathetic that you'd try to make that comparison to cover for the lack of stewardship in the Republican party that was apparently so incapable and inept that they couldn't do anything to stop the mighty and terrible Barney Frank minority-party juggernaut.

Quote:
So if someone walked into a bank with a note saying that he had a bomb and would blow up the bank if the tellers didn't give him the money, you'd blame the tellers and not the guy threatening them?

So if a guy threatened to stick his tongue out at the security guards, you'd give them a pass for running to the bank vault, falling all over themselves to be the first one to open it rather than putting forth even a half-assed effort towards stopping him?

That seems... well, in the words of Sterling Archer, "Classic you".

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 3:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Aug 25 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you blame the people who didn't act because they were threatened

Of course I am. They were the people in charge. There was no "bomb"...


of course there was. Are you seriously trying to argue that the Democrats never follow through on such rhetoric when a GOP majority does something they don't like? They never have their activist/union supporters descend somewhere and start protesting and marching? They never have their buddies in the media cover this 24/7, complete with biased color commentary? And this never has any impact at all on public opinion and potentially even future election outcomes?

Funny, because I seem to recall this happening all the time. Heck, it's pretty much the primary political methodology the Dems have employed for the last decade. It's why they won in 2006 and 2008. It's why Obama is in the white house right now. You even cheer when they do this Joph, or are you now suddenly developing amnesia with regards to the whole events in WI just a few months ago?


So when the GOP doesn't stand up to the Dem threats, you call them cowards, but when they do apparently they are "unwilling to compromise". Gotta love that!


Don't get me wrong. I do blame the GOP for not standing up to the Dems back then with regard to the rising danger of the sub-prime loans in the system. However, I blame the Dems even more. And it makes one wonder why you support the Dems knowing that they're the ones who have to be stood up to in order to do the right thing and avoid a financial meltdown. And you wonder why so many conservatives are cheering when the GOP is today standing up to the Dems. It's because we've learned that when we don't, the whole country suffers.


Which, really ought to make one wonder about what the hell the Dems are doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#167 Aug 25 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
They never have their activist/union supporters descend somewhere and start protesting and marching?
So they were afraid of the Dem version of the Tea Party? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#168 Aug 25 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They never have their activist/union supporters descend somewhere and start protesting and marching?
So they were afraid of the Dem version of the Tea Party? Smiley: dubious


I'd say that the Tea Party is a conservative version of what the Dems have been doing for decades, but sure. The difference being that as a conservative I largely applaud the actions of those who do involve themselves in those rallies and protests and otherwise work to raise awareness of conservative issues.


What Joph is doing is taking the somewhat bizarre approach of not defending (much less applauding) what the Dems did, or what their activists pushed for on their behalf, but rather blaming the GOP for failing to stand up to them and prevent a financial disaster. You'll notice he didn't say that what Frank did was right, nor that it was even acceptable. He simply blamed the GOP for not ignoring him and doing the right thing anyway.


That's kind of a hell of a way to show support for your party. I mean, it shows that you know that what your guys did was wrong, and you can't think of any way to defend what they did, but you're still going to find some reason to blame the other side anyway. Which, again, begs one to wonder why the hell you're supporting these guys in the first place?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#169 Aug 25 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
The difference being that as a conservative I largely applaud the actions of those who do involve themselves in those rallies and protests and otherwise work to raise awareness of conservative issues.
But if the other side does it ("it" being descending somewhere en masse and protest/march), you condemn it.
gbaji wrote:
You'll notice he didn't say that what Frank did was right
I notice he doesn't even bother to try to defend bad behavior from his side of the isle, while you go out of your way to trip over your feet to defend any and all actions and condemn the other, regardless of what that behavior might be.
gbaji wrote:
That's kind of a hell of a way to show support for your party.
Believing that the group you identify with can do no wrong and are always right while opposing groups can do no good and are always wrong isn't support; It's zealotry. It's fanaticism. It's unhealthy for yourself and the whole. Seek help.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#170 Aug 25 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The difference being that as a conservative I largely applaud the actions of those who do involve themselves in those rallies and protests and otherwise work to raise awareness of conservative issues.
But if the other side does it ("it" being descending somewhere en masse and protest/march), you condemn it.


I condemn the position. I absolutely support the right of people to protest and rally. I do often wonder why they do this for things which I think are 100% wrong, but they absolutely have the right to do so.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You'll notice he didn't say that what Frank did was right
I notice he doesn't even bother to try to defend bad behavior from his side of the isle, while you go out of your way to trip over your feet to defend any and all actions and condemn the other, regardless of what that behavior might be.


If I believe that the position taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe it's the wrong one, I will condemn it. And in both cases, I will present my reasons for supporting or opposing the position taken. Isn't that the correct way to do this? I just think it's bizarre when you aren't willing to defend your own sides position but instead attack the other side for failing to stand up to them.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
That's kind of a hell of a way to show support for your party.
Believing that the group you identify with can do no wrong and are always right while opposing groups can do no good and are always wrong isn't support; It's zealotry. It's fanaticism. It's unhealthy for yourself and the whole. Seek help.



But in this case, the GOP was in the right and the Dems were in the wrong. What Joph is doing by his approach is essentially admitting that his party was in the wrong. If he thought Frank was right to challenge the GOP when they were trying to investigate sub-prime loans, he could do that. But he didn't. Instead he is blaming the GOP for backing down.


Arguing that your guy was right is perfectly reasonable and normal. Choosing to attack the other guy for failing to stand up to your guy is downright insane. It shows that you know your guy was wrong, but you're choosing to defend him (by attacking the other guy) anyway. Which is a pretty extreme example of partisanship IMO.

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 3:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Aug 25 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I believe that the position taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe it's the wrong one, I will condemn it.
Needs a smidge of a correction.
gbaji wrote:
If I believe that the position my party has taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe that the position my party has taken is the wrong one, I will not admit it was wrong and defend it. If I believe that the position the other party has taken is right, I will condemn it. If I believe that the position the other party has taken is wrong, I will condemn it even more.
There we go, that's more accurate of what you really do. Maybe you just don't notice?
gbaji wrote:
Arguing that your guy was right is perfectly reasonable and normal.
Arguing that your guy is right is perfectly reasonable and normal; Arguing that your guy is right no matter what based purely on group is unhealthy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#172 Aug 25 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If I believe that the position taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe it's the wrong one, I will condemn it.
Needs a smidge of a correction.
gbaji wrote:
If I believe that the position my party has taken is the right one, I will defend it. If I believe that the position my party has taken is the wrong one, I will not admit it was wrong and defend it. If I believe that the position the other party has taken is right, I will condemn it. If I believe that the position the other party has taken is wrong, I will condemn it even more.
There we go, that's more accurate of what you really do. Maybe you just don't notice?


You can always accuse someone you don't agree with of doing this. It's kinda meaningless.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Arguing that your guy was right is perfectly reasonable and normal.
Arguing that your guy is right is perfectly reasonable and normal; Arguing that your guy is right no matter what based purely on group is unhealthy.


And what about not arguing that your guy is right but instead arguing that the other guy was wrong for failing to stand up to your guy and prevent a disaster? I mean, that really takes the crazy-partisan cake right there, doesn't it?

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 4:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#173 Aug 25 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can always accuse someone you don't agree with of doing this. It's kinda meaningless.
You can, but in your case it's an accurate portrayal of your behavior. Your calling it meaningless is just your denial to your own behavior, which is expected. You don't want to outright admit you're a zealot. Not many people do.
gbaji wrote:
And what about not arguing that your guy is right but instead arguing that the other guy was wrong for failing to stand up to you guy and prevent a disaster?
I figure Joph was simply conceding the point, but he's also in no position to have stopped that behavior. The guys you're defending, however, were in a position to do so, but they chose not to. And the reason you gave was they didn't want the protestors. That's much more detestable behavior. According to you, they knew it was wrong but chose not to do anything about it. That makes them an accessory to the behavior. He's saying "Okay, he did bad. Next topic" while you're going out of your way of trying to detach responsibility from your group's lack of action to prevent it from happening. I'd more respect you if you'd have said something like "Yeah, okay, the Republicans could have grown a pair and stood up for what they believed," but instead you're trying to say standing up for your beliefs is irrelevant.

Really, it more sounds like you're saying Republicans are pussies that are too afraid of the public opinion of them, which in turn makes it sounds like they're more concerned with keeping their jobs and themselves and not making America a better place.

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 7:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Aug 25 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm blaming the GOP because, and hold on because this will be crazy, they were in control of the government at the time this supposedly Barney Frank juggernaut was destroying America.

And Gbaji's defense for this is "Oh, no! What if they got called names?! That is just like a BOMB!"

That's f-ing retarded no matter how you try and spin it. If Frank was truly the issue here, it was a pure abdication of power and compete ineptness that the controlling party sat by with their thumbs up each other's asses ands let it happen. And for the most pathetic reason imaginable... One most of us learned to get over in the 5th grade.

But if that's what he wants to defend because he's that hard up to play the "blame the Democrats" game, who am I to stop him?

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 7:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175 Aug 25 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For the record, I'm not saying Frank was the reason for anything and think trying to make him the primary cause is a remarkably shallow talking point argument. But it astounds me that the GOP AM radio class has glommed on to this and yet refuses to take it to its actual conclusion -- that the party is power over the legislative and executive branches just sat back and let this supposed travesty occur. There is no argument for bitching about Frank that doesn't also include an admission that the GOP is incapable of governing if they can't even prevent the terror which is the premise of the entire argument when they're in control.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Aug 25 2011 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
I don't follow it, just sounds like Frank was an idiot and the Republicans are sheep.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#177 Aug 25 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can always accuse someone you don't agree with of doing this. It's kinda meaningless.
You can, but in your case it's an accurate portrayal of your behavior.


Coming from someone who disagrees with the positions themselves, you'll have to forgive me for not putting much weight on this claim.

Quote:
Your calling it meaningless is just your denial to your own behavior, which is expected. You don't want to outright admit you're a zealot. Not many people do.



It is meaningless. Anyone can make that exact claim at any time in any direction of any issue without any support at all. That's why it's meaningless. It's like arguing that you are right because you are right. In what universe do you actually believe this to be a good argument?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
And what about not arguing that your guy is right but instead arguing that the other guy was wrong for failing to stand up to you guy and prevent a disaster?
I figure Joph was simply conceding the point, but he's also in no position to have stopped that behavior.


Conceding the point would have involved him saying that Frank was wrong for doing what he did, and does bear some responsibility for the result. Here. I'll even meet him halfway. I do think the GOP was wrong for not pushing the issue. And I do think they bear some responsibility for failing to do so. I just happen to believe that the guy they failed to stand up to should bear more responsibility. He's the one who actually took the wrong position rather than the one who just failed to press his position hard enough.

Quote:
The guys you're defending, however, were in a position to do so, but they chose not to. And the reason you gave was they didn't want the protestors. That's much more detestable behavior.


More detestable than the guy who tossed the protest-spurring rhetoric at them in the first place? I guess I just don't understand your reasoning here.

Yes. They chose not to risk further political damage by pushing the issue in the face of such a strong public condemnation of their actions. That turned out to be a mistake. However, Frank and the Democrats choose to use that method in this case. They decided that preventing an investigation into the mortgage bundling process was worth stirring up calls of racism and poor-hating.


Quote:
According to you, they knew it was wrong but chose not to do anything about it.


Er? They were investigating to determine if there was something dangerous going on. Frank threw a fit and attacked them in the public eye for it. They backed down on the investigation. They made a decision that the investigation wasn't worth the political backlash. At the time, they didn't know for sure that there really was a danger, or how great the danger was. Remember, at this point, Freddie and Fanny were still insisting even under oath that everything was fine. The GOP wasn't sure they were telling the truth and wanted to investigate and open up the books to find out for themselves. Frank cut them off with his public diatribe against them.


Do you remember when this happened? I do. The media was buzzing with this. Frank was cheered by liberals all over the place. Hell. It wouldn't surprise me if we didn't have a thread about it here and Joph was one of the ones agreeing with Frank at the time and cheering him as well. I certainly remember that Stewart and Maher had field days with it. The story of the week was "GOP tried to screw over poor minority folks and the hero Barney Frank calls them on it".

Quote:
That makes them an accessory to the behavior.


To what? Backing off on an investigation?

Quote:
He's saying "Okay, he did bad. Next topic"...


Who? Joph? Could you please quote where he even came close to a written acknowledgment that Frank did anything wrong?


Quote:
...while you're going out of your way of trying to detach responsibility from your group's lack of action to prevent it from happening.


Wow. Just... wow. You are completely backwards. Take the blinders off.

Quote:
I'd more respect you if you'd have said something like "Yeah, okay, the Republicans could have grown a pair and stood up for what they believed," but instead you're trying to say standing up for your beliefs is irrelevant.


Holy hell! Like this:

Me, 4 posts ago wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I do blame the GOP for not standing up to the Dems back then with regard to the rising danger of the sub-prime loans in the system.


Maybe if you stopped slobbering all over Joph for half a second and paid attention to what was actually being said, you'd avoid making yourself look like such a tool.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Aug 25 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Jophiel wrote:
For the record, I'm not saying Frank was the reason for anything and think trying to make him the primary cause is a remarkably shallow talking point argument. But it astounds me that the GOP AM radio class has glommed on to this and yet refuses to take it to its actual conclusion -- that the party is power over the legislative and executive branches just sat back and let this supposed travesty occur. There is no argument for bitching about Frank that doesn't also include an admission that the GOP is incapable of governing if they can't even prevent the terror which is the premise of the entire argument when they're in control.


They were proposing to open an investigation and open the books at Freddie and Fanny to see if anything was going on Joph. As you well know, at that time everything we (and they) were being told was that these securities were perfectly safe and there was nothing to be alarmed about. They just felt like something was wrong because the whole thing looked like too much easy money (and they were right).

It's politics Joph. You pick your battles, even when you are the majority party. Doubly so when you're the majority party and you're already taking a beating in the public's perception of your brand. They decided that expanding an investigation which might not turn anything up wasn't worth the political cost. It's unfortunate, but that's the nature of politics.

Again though, I'm going to put a hell of a lot more blame on the guy who choose that particular issue to use the racist/poor-hater card on, than the guys who choose to drop that issue as a result. Preventing an investigation into those GSEs was really that important to the Dems that he'd do that? Think about that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Aug 25 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
Coming from someone who disagrees with the positions themselves, you'll have to forgive me for not putting much weight on this claim.
See? This is what I'm talking about. I don't agree with you, so I must be wrong. You don't even entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, you have a problem. Shit, man, you're showing signs of a drug problem. My god. I usually take text with a grain of salt, but I'm actually feeling pity for you. Get help. Seriously.
gbaji wrote:
Holy hell! Like this:
Me, 4 posts ago wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I do blame the GOP for not standing up to the Dems back then with regard to the rising danger of the sub-prime loans in the system.
Maybe if you stopped slobbering all over Joph for half a second and paid attention to what was actually being said, you'd avoid making yourself look like such a tool.
You also said
You, 4 posts ago wrote:
However, I blame the Dems even more. And it makes one wonder why you support the Dems knowing that they're the ones who have to be stood up to in order to do the right thing and avoid a financial meltdown
Note that while you're saying you blame them, you're quick to divert that blame to the opposite party. "I know I have a problem, but it isn't my fault! They keep selling me the stuff so it really isn't my fault after all!"

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 8:51pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#180 Aug 25 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Oh. And for the record, Joph's last post was the opposite of an admission that Frank did something wrong. Just in case anyone is keeping score or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Aug 25 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Coming from someone who disagrees with the positions themselves, you'll have to forgive me for not putting much weight on this claim.
See? This is what I'm talking about. I don't agree with you, so I must be wrong.


No. I don't agree with you, and I will provide an argument as to why I believe I'm right and you are wrong.

You on the other hand are engaging in a completely circular argument. You're arguing that since you disagree with me, I must be wrong, and I must know I'm wrong, so therefore I'm deliberately arguing a position I know is wrong because I don't want to admit that I'm wrong for some purely partisan reason. There are about three layers of crazy-assumption there.


Quote:
You don't even entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, you have a problem. Shit, man, you're showing signs of a drug problem. My god. I usually take text with a grain of salt, but I'm actually feeling pity for you. Get help. Seriously.


Oh noez! Not the "you're so wrong you must have a drug/psychological problem and I feel bad for you!" bit!!!! Help me Lolgaxe, you're my only hope!

No comment on the fact that you got it completely backwards with regard to who was conceding some fault on his side, right? I mean, you don't want to ever admit to being wrong in anyway at all, right? No projection on your part though! Smiley: lol

Edited, Aug 25th 2011 5:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Aug 25 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
No projection on your part though!
gbaji, not a few moments earlier wrote:
Maybe if you stopped slobbering all over Joph for half a second
I'm sorry, what was that about projections, bubula?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#183 Aug 25 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Holy hell! Like this:
Me, 4 posts ago wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I do blame the GOP for not standing up to the Dems back then with regard to the rising danger of the sub-prime loans in the system.
Maybe if you stopped slobbering all over Joph for half a second and paid attention to what was actually being said, you'd avoid making yourself look like such a tool.
You also said
You, 4 posts ago wrote:
However, I blame the Dems even more. And it makes one wonder why you support the Dems knowing that they're the ones who have to be stood up to in order to do the right thing and avoid a financial meltdown
Note that while you're saying you blame them, you're quick to divert that blame to the opposite party. "I know I have a problem, but it isn't my fault! They keep selling me the stuff so it really isn't my fault after all!"



And you're trying to claim that I wont ever admit fault? How far are you going to take this? So it's not good enough that I acknowledged that my party made a mistake because I still insisted that I place more blame on the guys who choose the wrong position?


I honestly just don't get that logic. You really don't agree that more blame should go to the guy who chose to attack someone who tried to investigate sub-prime loans than the guy who, upon being attacked decided not to pursue the issue? Really? Cause that just seems insane (and blindly partisan just like you're accusing me of being). Do you have any rationale for this?


At the end of the day, it turned out there was a problem with the loans. What the GOP was trying to do was the right thing. Franks position was the wrong thing. He won that political battle and we all suffered for it. How he won, or whether we think that the GOP gave up to easily is really a secondary issue. Had he not chosen to oppose them, we might have prevented the bubble collapse (or at least prevented it from continuing to grow for a couple more years before collapsing). That's not really in doubt, right? Absent his action the GOP would not have done what they did. He's clearly the prime cause of that particular sequence of events.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#184 Aug 25 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
You really don't agree that more blame should go to the guy who chose to attack someone who tried to investigate sub-prime loans than the guy who, upon being attacked decided not to pursue the issue? Really? Cause that just seems insane (and blindly partisan just like you're accusing me of being). Do you have any rationale for this?
Didn't say that, though in your defense that's probably what you read. Note, I don't blame you. You have a fanatical problem. No, I said that if they didn't pursue the issue, knowing full well that it was bad, then they're due blame as well. I guess it's your policy to shirk responsibility.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#185 Aug 25 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And for the record, Joph's last post was the opposite of an admission that Frank did something wrong.

No, it was saying that the issue is deeper than the GOP talking point of "It was all Frank!!!"

But, yeah, here's another couple nails for your cross.


Edited, Aug 25th 2011 8:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#186 Aug 25 2011 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You really don't agree that more blame should go to the guy who chose to attack someone who tried to investigate sub-prime loans than the guy who, upon being attacked decided not to pursue the issue? Really? Cause that just seems insane (and blindly partisan just like you're accusing me of being). Do you have any rationale for this?
Didn't say that, though in your defense that's probably what you read.


You said I was "quick to divert blame to the other party". Which isn't really a correct evaluation of what I said either.

I said that while I do blame the GOP for backing off on the investigation, I place greater blame for the result on Frank. He's the one who created the conflict over that investigation in the first place.

Do you disagree with what I actually said? Yes or no? And if no, then why the hell are you arguing with me?


Quote:
No, I said that if they didn't pursue the issue, knowing full well that it was bad, then they're due blame as well. I guess it's your policy to shirk responsibility.


Sigh. Stop playing semantic games. I've already acknowledged that they are due "some blame". The follow up statement, the one you made a big freaking deal about was that more blame is due Barney Frank. It's interesting that even though I pointed this out directly to you, you've actually tapped danced around that issue.


Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Aug 25 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And for the record, Joph's last post was the opposite of an admission that Frank did something wrong.

No, it was saying that the issue is deeper than the GOP talking point of "It was all Frank!!!"

But, yeah, here's another couple nails for your cross.


But still no admission that Frank was wrong to oppose the investigation into Fanny and Freddie from you? No statement that had he not done this, we might just have avoided or lessened the housing bubble crash?


But I'm the one who can't admit any fault on his side! Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#188 Aug 25 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stop playing semantic games.
I didn't know it was a solo game. Sorry for encroaching on your territory.
gbaji wrote:
Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?
You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#189 Aug 25 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Stop playing semantic games.
I didn't know it was a solo game. Sorry for encroaching on your territory.
gbaji wrote:
Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?
You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.


You're still tap dancing. Answer the question.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Aug 25 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
Answer the question.
Why? Like you often say, it's irrelevant to our conversation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#191 Aug 25 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Answer the question.
Why? Like you often say, it's irrelevant to our conversation.


You certainly seemed to think it was relevant when trying to downplay the fact that I did say that I placed blame on the GOP prior to you insisting that I didn't.


So, if that statement was such a big deal, why not address it? Do you agree with my statement that Frank should bear more blame than the GOP? If you don't posses the character flaws you keep claiming I have, it should be easy for you to answer the question, right? The fact that you have tap danced around it for 3 posts now strongly supports my supposition of projection on your part.

Yes or no? More blame or not? It should be an easy question to answer.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#192 Aug 25 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
You certainly seemed to think it was relevant when trying to downplay the fact that I did say that I placed blame on the GOP prior to you insisting that I didn't.
No, I was using it as an example of your pattern of behavior. The issue itself was irrelevant, your reaction to it is. But, being the better man, I'll make you a deal. You give me incentive to answer your irrelevant question, and I'll answer it. Or, we can spend the rest of the time of you trying to show me as someone dancing around your "oh so important" political issue when our conversation was actually about your neurological behavior, and me collecting more and more proof of your zealotry and denial. My post count goes up either way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#193 Aug 25 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But I'm the one who can't admit any fault on his side! Smiley: lol

I've bitched about Democrats enough that you'll have to try a little harder.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#194 Aug 25 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?
You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.

gbaji, it's not a conservative/liberal thing right now. It's a "you're a fanatic" thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need medication or something. Sometimes you're truly scary.
#195 Aug 26 2011 at 1:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
What do you mean "No"? He spent that money fully aware of how much money had already been spent on TARP. I'm not sure how you justify absolving him of the responsibility of the choice to spend more money even over the complete objection of the GOP.


Ya, they didn't vote for it, but the GOP sure as hell got all the pork they could out of it too. It's part of that whole "perpetually running for re-election" problem I spoke of previously: The GOP was SO opposed to Obama's stimulus that they, as quietly as possible with the exception of the idiots who said they'd refuse to take stimulus $ & then quietly backtracked on it, blew the stimulus for all the sweet cash they could get for them & theirs.

This is a fact. Here's a list of some of them, Paul Ryan being at the top.

Gbaji wrote:
That's irrelevant in the context of "who put us into the current debt crisis", isn't it?


You can't, with a straight face, pin it all on Dems just like I can't pin it all on Pubbies. Let's start with the basics, shall we? As I know you love to play your semantics game: Can we agree that the deficit (debt) is the differences between spending & revenue (taxes)?

If the answer is yes, we can continue. If not, don't bother reading the rest of my response as if you're too retarded to understand what a deficit is there's no use talking about it with you.

So, I'm going to pretend your answer is yes: a deficit is the difference between revenue (taxes) & spending.

Did Obama increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely. So of course Obama's economic policies increased the deficit.

Did Dubya increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely. In fact, here's a chart:

Screenshot


As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under Dubya, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion; from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, under Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.

Oh, & it has also now begun to decline.


In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.

So, who's responsible for the increase in federal spending? Answer: THEY BOTH ARE. It could be argued that Dubya was MORE responsible, but I won't argue that as it isn't my point. My point is that Dubya & Obama both increased spending which is one HALF of the reason we had this "debt" crisis.

So, now that spending is out of the way & we can both agree that Obama & Dubya increased spending (This is a fact, it is inarguable) let's move on to revenue (taxes).

The Bush Tax Cuts, which have be extended under Obama, decreased revenue (taxes). This is a fact.

Also, when the housing bubble popped, revenue (taxes) decreased as the government was no longer making the revenue (taxes) off of the housing market. It's effects rippled throughout various industries, many companies in various fields & many people aren't making as much money as they were before the housing bubble popped, so revenue (taxes) are down across the board.

You can't make revenue (taxes) off of something that's no longer there: This is also a fact.

In conclusion: The deficit Obama inherited, which was a combination in an increase in spending coupled with a loss in revenue (taxes) under Dubya, combined with the increased spending of Obama & the continued lower revenues (taxes) taken in during Obama's term, is the reason we are in the current debt crisis.

These are facts. Pretending your sides shit doesn't stink in this is, at the very least, dishonest, Gbaji.

Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies?

/shame!

And again, increasing revenue (taxes) while decreasing spending would have lowered the debt more that just decreasing spending.

Also, an irrefutable fact.





____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#196 Aug 26 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
Nadenu wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you agree that Frank is more to blame than the GOP? Yes or no?
You're trying to divert attention from the issue of your overall fanaticism. We're not talking about a specific instance. We're talking your behavior patterns, encompassing any topic with a decided political environment. Well, maybe not "we" so much as "I." You're doing everything you can to distract from it.

gbaji, it's not a conservative/liberal thing right now. It's a "you're a fanatic" thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need medication or something. Sometimes you're truly scary.

I'be come up with a theory that all West Coasters, living with the knowledge of the impending Big One, are nihilists which completely deranges their thought processes. They believe in nothing.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#197 Aug 26 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji, it's not a conservative/liberal thing right now. It's a "you're a fanatic" thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you need medication or something. Sometimes you're truly scary.


I'm not sure how meaningful that is when some posters here simply equate "conservative" with "fanatic". What did I do or say to make you apply the "fanatic" label?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Aug 26 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You certainly seemed to think it was relevant when trying to downplay the fact that I did say that I placed blame on the GOP prior to you insisting that I didn't.
No, I was using it as an example of your pattern of behavior. The issue itself was irrelevant, your reaction to it is. But, being the better man, I'll make you a deal. You give me incentive to answer your irrelevant question, and I'll answer it.


Ok. How about: You were the made a big deal out of it. I said that Frank bears more blame than the GOP. You quoted that statement and seemed to argue that by making that claim I somehow nullified my earlier statement that I do place some blame on the GOP for not pushing forward with the investigation.

Let me also remind you that you were the one who said you would respect me if I was willing to place some blame on the GOP. So I did exactly what you said you would respect, but then instead of respecting it, you shifted to talking about my statement about Frank bearing more of the blame.

I think it's more than fair that I ask if you think I'm wrong about this, and why. Because if you disagree, then your shift to that part of my post has some validity to it. If you don't, then it was just you trying to weasel out of your own claim about what you would or would not respect. I would think you'd want to show that you aren't a weasel who makes claims and promises and then doesn't keep them, so I'm honestly surprised that you'd even need encouragement to do this.

Good enough?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Aug 26 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
******
43,057 posts
gbaji wrote:
You quoted that statement and seemed
gbaji wrote:
and seemed
gbaji wrote:
seemed
See where you went wrong? You, again, misinterpreted the conversation and now you're trying to use your mistake in a play to divert from what everyone already realizes. That you're fanatical. Contrary to your belief (another amusing misinterpretation on your part) it has nothing to do with the party itself, but your rabid foaming at the mouth defense of it. You focus so blindly at defending your group that you don't even realize this is about you. I'm just trying to look out for you, bubula.

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 4:37pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Aug 26 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Ya, they didn't vote for it, but the GOP sure as hell got all the pork they could out of it too. It's part of that whole "perpetually running for re-election" problem I spoke of previously: The GOP was SO opposed to Obama's stimulus that they, as quietly as possible with the exception of the idiots who said they'd refuse to take stimulus $ & then quietly backtracked on it, blew the stimulus for all the sweet cash they could get for them & theirs.

This is a fact. Here's a list of some of them, Paul Ryan being at the top.


Um... Except that Ryan's district didn't get the money they applied for. Did you read the article?

It's also more than a bit unfair to argue that because members of the GOP opposed spending the money in the first place, that they should not allow any of that spending to occur in their states or districts once the decision has already been made. They do also have an obligation to their constituents. Those constituents will have to pay an equal share of the cost of those things, right? There's nothing wrong with opposing doing something entirely, but then also saying that if we're going to do it, I may as well get something out of it so my own constituents don't get screwed.

Imagine there's a group of friends going out to the movies. Some of them want to see the movie on the most expensive Imax/3d screen, but a couple guys think it's too expensive and isn't worth it. They get overruled and so everyone ponies up for the more expensive tickets. Your argument is like saying that having been overruled, and having paid for the more expensive tickets, they should be chastised for wearing the 3d glasses while watching the movie.


Quote:
So, I'm going to pretend your answer is yes: a deficit is the difference between revenue (taxes) & spending.


Correct.

Quote:
Did Obama increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely. So of course Obama's economic policies increased the deficit.

Did Dubya increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely.


I have never claimed that he didn't. My argument has always been about the rate of spending increase, not that there was one. Some spending increase can be handled by the economy. Too much spending increase cannot. Bush did the former, Obama did the later. That's why we recovered after the recession in the early 2000s, but have not recovered as well from this most recent recession.


Quote:
As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under Dubya, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion; from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, under Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.

Oh, & it has also now begun to decline.


In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.


In 1/4th the time. Which means that he's increased spending at double the rate. Math is hard, I know!

You're also making the mistake of looking at the time line in terms of presidential terms and not gaps between/through recessions. The recession started in 2008. We should look at spending increases in response to that recession and not as some general trend. Look at the pattern of spending through the first shaded area. Now look at the spending pattern in the second. Notice anything? There is nearly no change to the overall spending pattern as we went through the first recession on that chart.


I's very different in the second though, right? That's what I'm trying to get people to see. Funny thing is that you dug up a chart that shows exactly what I'm talking about but you didn't see it.

Quote:
So, who's responsible for the increase in federal spending? Answer: THEY BOTH ARE.


That's the wrong question: Who increased spending at a greater rate? Answer: Obama.

Quote:
It could be argued that Dubya was MORE responsible, but I won't argue that as it isn't my point. My point is that Dubya & Obama both increased spending which is one HALF of the reason we had this "debt" crisis.


I suppose it "could" be argued that Bush was more responsible, but it would be an incredibly weak argument consisting of imaginary things like unicorns and pixies.

Quote:
So, now that spending is out of the way & we can both agree that Obama & Dubya increased spending (This is a fact, it is inarguable) let's move on to revenue (taxes).


Yes. They both increased spending. So did Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagain, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower... Every president has spent more dollars than the president before him. It's completely meaningless to simply point that out and leave it as that. What matters is the rate of spending increase. And Obama's is massively greater that Bush's. Doubly so when we look specifically at "spending in a recession".

Quote:
The Bush Tax Cuts, which have be extended under Obama, decreased revenue (taxes). This is a fact.


They decreased revenue from that 60 year relative high in 2000, yes. But that's also somewhat meaningless. Did they reduce revenue to dangerously low levels? Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, revenue just prior to the start of this recession was at 18.5% of GDP. In the last 40 years, there have only been 9 years in which revenue was higher than that.

So historically, revenue was not low as a result of the Bush tax cuts. So if you are attempting to claim that the revenue part of the deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts, you are absolutely provably wrong.

Quote:
Also, when the housing bubble popped, revenue (taxes) decreased as the government was no longer making the revenue (taxes) off of the housing market. It's effects rippled throughout various industries, many companies in various fields & many people aren't making as much money as they were before the housing bubble popped, so revenue (taxes) are down across the board.


Correct. Revenues drop when a bubble bursts (or some other dramatic shift occurs). This is usually what causes recessions. Let me remind you of a fact that I've already pointed out earlier in this thread: Between 2001 and 2003 revenues dropped by 3.3% of GDP. Between 2007 and 2009 revenues dropped by 3.6% of GDP. The point here being that the relative revenue loss in this recession was similar to that in the previous one. So if you're going to try to blame the current debt crisis on that, you're going to have to look elsewhere.

Quote:
In conclusion: The deficit Obama inherited, which was a combination in an increase in spending coupled with a loss in revenue (taxes) under Dubya, combined with the increased spending of Obama & the continued lower revenues (taxes) taken in during Obama's term, is the reason we are in the current debt crisis.


How do you conclude this? Let me point out that in 2007, the deficit was only $160B dollars. That deficit had been falling for 3 years straight. To say that Obama "inherited a deficit" is a gross misstatement. The deficits which occurred as a result of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the tax rates. It was purely because of losses as a result of the recession (and actions taken during it as well).

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the revenue losses in this recession, while high historically were similar to those in 2001-2003. Yet, the job market recovered quickly from that one, and hasn't from this one. What is the difference? Spending. The rate of spending is why we aren't recovering. The data is right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.

Quote:
Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies?


You're the one who is conveniently ignoring important facts and coming to conclusions which are completely false. I suppose I turn this forum into a den of lies, but that's because so many people find that in order to argue against the facts I present they have to lie. Maybe you should look to yourself and figure out why you feel you have to do that?

Edited, Aug 26th 2011 2:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CDT