[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is that the Clinton administration wasn't concerned with the defect or balanced budgets and as I've pointed out, even members of his own party where frustrated with his refusal to act in this regard. Bill Clinton didn't shut down government because he wanted to spend and tax less - he did it because Congress wanted this and forced his hand. You can point out all the other exterior circumstances which helped the Gingrich and the Republican's with their goal, but the fact remains that it was their goal, and it was achieved and not in the 9 years Clinton see-sawed over.

The Dems were not willing to gut the social safety net in order to balance the budget in the manner that the GOP was advocating. That is what led to the government showdown. A battle which the GOP lost, I might add, because they were on the wrong side of public opinion. Having said that, we'll just note that none of your response pointed out where the GOP passed a balanced BUDGET during the Clinton Administration. Which was my fundamental point. So I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't give ALL credit to Congress. Clinton does get some credit. But, let's remember - the budgets didn't start getting balanced until after the Republicans took over and it was one of the issues they pushed.

But, I thought the 2009 crash was Clinton's fault?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why was PAYGO disbanded, and has there been talk of bringing it back that I have missed?

The GOP discarded PAYGO because it required the federal government to pay for tax cuts … which is the GOP's number one priority regardless of the fiscal consequences. The Dems have proposed bringing it back but the GOP opposes it because it might require a tax increase to pay for a tax cut or increased spending. And the bottom line is that you can't talk about fiscal sanity on the revenue side of the equation and suck on Grover Norquist's d*ck at the same time.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Dems were not willing to gut the social safety net in order to balance the budget in the manner that the GOP was advocating

"Social safety net?" Are you talking about all the Ponzi Schemes that have for the most part gotten us into the mess we are in today?

That is what led to the government showdown. A battle which the GOP lost, I might add, because they were on the wrong side of public opinion.

You prove my point. Clinton and the Dems where engaged in a PR war. They weren't interested in reducing the defecit or balancing the budget. The Reps of 94 WHERE and sacrificed bad PR to make sure we were where we needed to be financially, despite taking short term hits. We know Clinton wasn't interested in cutting taxes or spending. The new blood in 94 where. Sometimes you've got to take the PR hit, in order to do the greater good. Obama seems determined to take PR hits to do the greater bad, though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Social safety net?" Are you talking about all the Ponzi Schemes that have for the most part gotten us into the mess we are in today?

I don't understand why Republicans like you don't realize how idiotic they sound saying stupid stuff like this. The definition of a Ponzi scheme:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors

How does this in any way fit the description of Medicare/Medicaid? It doesn't apply to Social Security either, which is not a fraudulent operation:

Social Security as a Ponzi? It's a Bad Metaphor - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

Ponzi schemes like the ones run by Charles Ponzi and Bernard Madoff can work only if their operators keep investors in the dark about the source of their alleged magical returns. No more scrupulously honest organization exists than the Social Security Administration. Not only does the administration mail citizens reports detailing their expected contributions and receipts from Social Security, but it also publishes annual reports indicating future shortfalls and sternly calling for action to deal with them.

I know you guys don't like social security and other safety nets, and I know it sounds clever to call these things a Ponzi scheme, but for ****'s sake please don't resort to letting your emotions run away from you and saying factually inaccurate things, because it doesn't further your arguments. If any, your emotions running amuck makes your arguments worse.

[screener]

A stupendous thinker he ain't.

[OldManMac]

There is a huge difference between where and were, stupendous!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does this in any way fit the description of Medicare/Medicaid? It doesn't apply to Social Security either, which is not a fraudulent operation:

You are making a semantic argument. The reason why a Ponzi Scheme is fraudulent is because you are giving money to people who have joined from the proceeds of new participants when you know that the total input won't be enough to cover the output. The "scheme" is that you'll need more paying participants than those you give back to, and in both cases this won't happen.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/01/...p-up-the-pace/

Just because the federal government is being honest about the future insolvency of the plan and it's inability to keep the scheme funded does not make it any less a credible plan than what Ponzi developed. The only way for the"expected contribution" come to fruition is if the federal government raises taxes or cuts services. There are not enough "investors" in the plan to cover it's output as was devised.

It's like if Madoff, after realizing he'd never catch up to be able to pay back investors by simply rotating the funds, notified the investors he already had and told them that he was going to start actually investing all new monies to start generating revenue and that everyone should just trust that there would eventually be enough to cover the promised outlays in the future.

A plan that relies on investments from new investors to pay off the older ones, where there won't be enough new investors to cover the outlays, is a "scheme" no matter how you spin it. Of course, the Democrats plan is to keep spending taxpayer dollars regardless if we have the money to cover the outlays. The difference between Madoff and the Federal Government is that the Federal Government can mandate that more investors keep pouring money into the system so it's crash is delayed and it's totally legal.

I know you guys don't like social security and other safety nets, and I know it sounds clever to call these things a Ponzi scheme, but for ****'s sake please don't resort to letting your emotions run away from you and saying factually inaccurate things, because it doesn't further your arguments. If any, your emotions running amuck makes your arguments worse.

Sorry, but your spin fails. I have no problem with Social Security of safety nets. I have a problem when the government uses it's poor management skills to take tax payers dollars for plans it's never really going to be able to afford. I'd like to the government to be able to give everyone a pony too. However, if they have to take more of my money than is necessary for me to get that pony so everyone can have one, it's not a very smart move and is a scheme that will fail. It's YOUR emotions and those who simply want to give everything to everyone without realizing the negative effects emptying everyone's pockets will have on our overall financial security, which is the problem. It's ironic that you try to spin the situation in the reverse.

[Big Mac]

Not only is it a matter of poor management skills, it's worse than that. The great criminal leftist LBJ took the Social Security fund and combined it with the General Fund to make his deficits look smaller. Then he gave us a new bankrupting entitlement, Medicare, which from the outset drew against the General Fund it fund itself. I used to think Carter was the worst president, but he's just the worst living president. LBJ was far, far worse. As I've said in the past, most of our modern problems can be traced back to him. And BHO is trying to outdo him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You sell used bubble gum to prostitutes? Wow.

The greatest accomplishment of MLK is that you get Monday off? That's your takeaway? That's the first thing that comes to your mind you think of MLK? Really?

^^ Desperate. Silly. Trollish. ^^

How about equal voting rights? Something Republicans are trying to curtail with all the new voting laws.

I and every Republican I know absolutely adore equal voting rights. There isn't one Republican trying to curtail equal voting rights. Quit pretending unregistered, nameless and fraudulent is equal.

[Big Mac]

Actually, I think stupid people shouldn't vote, but that would disenfranchise nearly half the country that votes Democrat, I suppose.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I and every Republican I know absolutely adore equal voting rights. There isn't one Republican trying to curtail equal voting rights. Quit pretending unregistered, nameless and fraudulent is equal.

Republicans love equal rights so much that they resort to dirty tricks like mailing Democrats with the wrong voting date.

AFP Wisconsin ballots have late return date - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

[Dork.]

I read an article yesterday (can't find the link now, maybe I'll look around more after work) that made the claim that despite only winning 40% of the vote in SC, Gingrich got the highest vote total in the history of the SC primary. This implies that a lot more people came out to vote than usual. Now, that shouldn't be all that surprising: this is the most wide-open field on the Republican side in quite some time, and people are less likely to show up to a primary if they think the nomination is pretty much settled.

If all the other news articles I have been reading are to be believed, the Republican Establishment is scared to death of Newt, because they think he's a ticking time bomb, and is liable to embarass the party in the general election similar to the way Palin did. They are missing a few points:

- Newt is intelligent, and will do well in debates.
- Newt doesn't give a damn what the establishment thinks, and will keep going as long as he has a chance of winning.
- Newt appears to be motivating people who don't usually vote to come out to the polls!

The third point is very important. When GWB won his re-election in 2004, there were a lot more people voting in the General Election than in 2000, and a majority of those new voters picked Bush. Recall that many conservatives were not all that enamored of GWB back then, but the GOP put anti-Gay Marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states, and hordes of new conservative voters came out to vote them down (and also vote for President). If you're not going to win a general election by appealing to moderates (which Newton Leroy probably won't be doing), you have to turn out enough new voters to tip the scales in your favor.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I and every Republican I know absolutely adore equal voting rights. There isn't one Republican trying to curtail equal voting rights. Quit pretending unregistered, nameless and fraudulent is equal.

More revisionist history. You would think that intelligent people wouldn't try to make arguments like that against the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Republicans have been consistent in their stand on voting rights for all citizens. It's the Democrats who have done somersaults in their attempts to attract voters.

The Civil Rights Party

Speaking of which, if having some ethical lapses and routinely having sex with someone who isn't your wife disqualifies you from being considered a great leader or someone to represent this country, then we really need to rethink that day off the Federal government has in January.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More revisionist history. You would think that intelligent people wouldn't try to make arguments like that against the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Republicans have been consistent in their stand on voting rights for all citizens. It's the Democrats who have done somersaults in their attempts to attract voters.

The Civil Rights Party

Speaking of which, if having some ethical lapses and routinely having sex with someone who isn't your wife disqualifies you from being considered a great leader or someone to represent this country, then we really need to rethink that day off the Federal government has in January.

Shows you how far right the Republican party has gone since the MLK days.

Even Ronald Reagan would be a RINO these days.

Republicans are all about voter suppression, curtailing the voting rights of minorities and the poor.

Tom Tancredo, a Republican and tea-partier, wants to get rid of parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that MLK worked so hard for.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are making a semantic argument. The reason why a Ponzi Scheme is fraudulent is because you are giving money to people who have joined from the proceeds of new participants when you know that the total input won't be enough to cover the output. The "scheme" is that you'll need more paying participants than those you give back to, and in both cases this won't happen.

Ponzi Scheme or Not, Social Security Can't Keep Up the Pace - DailyFinance

Just because the federal government is being honest about the future insolvency of the plan and it's inability to keep the scheme funded does not make it any less a credible plan than what Ponzi developed. The only way for the"expected contribution" come to fruition is if the federal government raises taxes or cuts services. There are not enough "investors" in the plan to cover it's output as was devised.

It's like if Madoff, after realizing he'd never catch up to be able to pay back investors by simply rotating the funds, notified the investors he already had and told them that he was going to start actually investing all new monies to start generating revenue and that everyone should just trust that there would eventually be enough to cover the promised outlays in the future.

A plan that relies on investments from new investors to pay off the older ones, where there won't be enough new investors to cover the outlays, is a "scheme" no matter how you spin it. Of course, the Democrats plan is to keep spending taxpayer dollars regardless if we have the money to cover the outlays. The difference between Madoff and the Federal Government is that the Federal Government can mandate that more investors keep pouring money into the system so it's crash is delayed and it's totally legal.



Sorry, but your spin fails. I have no problem with Social Security of safety nets. I have a problem when the government uses it's poor management skills to take tax payers dollars for plans it's never really going to be able to afford. I'd like to the government to be able to give everyone a pony too. However, if they have to take more of my money than is necessary for me to get that pony so everyone can have one, it's not a very smart move and is a scheme that will fail. It's YOUR emotions and those who simply want to give everything to everyone without realizing the negative effects emptying everyone's pockets will have on our overall financial security, which is the problem. It's ironic that you try to spin the situation in the reverse.

Then say that it is no more credible than a Ponzi scheme, but don't say that it is in fact a Ponzi scheme, because that is just pure bullshit.

My spin doesn't fail, you said that it is a Ponzi scheme. You fail for making arguments based solely on your emotions.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: do you ever wonder why people don't respond to your rants?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: do you ever wonder why people don't respond to your rants?

I think you're making the incorrect assumption here.

[besson3c]

What's my assumption?

[The Final Dakar]

That he's looking to engage in some type of discussion.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

More revisionist history. You would think that intelligent people wouldn't try to make arguments like that against the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King. Republicans have been consistent in their stand on voting rights for all citizens. It's the Democrats who have done somersaults in their attempts to attract voters.

You're both wrong. Prior to Nixon, the Republican party of Lincoln and King were largely composed of progressives, with the Democrats composed mostly of conservatives. Both parties have seen pretty much a 180° ideological shift a few times throughout their history.

The conservative voting base of past Democrats would have been against social change, just as the conservative voting base of current Republicans are now. The very same people who were against mixed race marriages have now latched onto same sex marriages, using nearly the exact same arguments. The only difference is that instead of a D next to their name, it's an R.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That he's looking to engage in some type of discussion.

You've come to know me too well

I guess I can kind of understand how this place would be an emotional escape valve, I use this place to goof off and say things I might temper in real life, but I also find that using the PWL as a constant personal escape valve makes this environment incredibly predictable and boring too... Don't some of you guys get bored with the same old types of rants?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Shows you how far right the Republican party has gone since the MLK days.

Nowhere. They've remained consistent. It's the other party that did a 360 turn and went from one extreme to the other. The democrats are no longer the party of obstructing civil rights, they are now the party of special rights for small groups.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then say that it is no more credible than a Ponzi scheme, but don't say that it is in fact a Ponzi scheme, because that is just pure bullshit.

My spin doesn't fail, you said that it is a Ponzi scheme. You fail for making arguments based solely on your emotions.

Again, a semantic argument. When all you can argue is definitions, your spin fails.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, a semantic argument. When all you can argue is definitions, your spin fails.

What the hell are you talking about? A semantic argument would be a difference in interpretation. How is "the safety nets are Ponzi schemes" open to multiple interpretations? The concept of a Ponzi scheme is not some sort of vague concept, it is something very specific.

Just own up to the fact that you said something dumb, we'll get over it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, I think stupid people shouldn't vote, but that would disenfranchise nearly half the country that votes Democrat, I suppose.

You're better than that. You *know* that there are equally as many stupid people on both sides of the fence. In order to be able to vote, maybe voters should have to write a short quiz about the candidates they are voting for, to prove that they are making an informed decision.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What the hell are you talking about? A semantic argument would be a difference in interpretation. How is "the safety nets are Ponzi schemes" open to multiple interpretations?

You're not debating the point. I explained how it was a scheme similar to a "Ponzi" scheme, and you want to debate if it meets the exact definition, which is really irrelevant to the broader debate.

Just own up to the fact that you said something dumb, we'll get over it.

Hello Besson, this is Irony calling. Hi..howa' doin'?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You're not debating the point. I explained how it was a scheme similar to a "Ponzi" scheme, and you want to debate if it meets the exact definition, which is really irrelevant to the broader debate.



Hello Besson, this is Irony calling. Hi..howa' doin'?

This will be my last response (hopefully). You said it *is* a Ponzi scheme. Carrying on this discussion will be about as productive as doing so with my cat, I realize that, but hopefully somewhere inside you you can realize that it this could have been avoided by speaking accurately without these ridiculous distractions.

[lpkmckenna]

I was just reading this Salon article on Obama's SotU address, when I learned for the first time that Gingrich thinks Mitt Romney's taxes are too high! He actually thinks Romney shouldn't pay a single penny in taxes for from his ~$20M in investment income.

How can anyone be so fncking stupid? Modern American conservatism must be a mental illness.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

.......
How can anyone be so fncking stupid? Modern American conservatism must be a mental illness.

Funny you should say that. This book has been out for a few years.
Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions (9781595550064): Michael Savage: Books

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You've come to know me too well

Not really, that's the logical conclusion to your question. Oh, and to posting in a forum (Rather than a blog).

[Chongo]

When Social Security was enacted, life expextancy was about 60 and the age to collect was set at 65. There were 160 workers per retiree. Today it's 3:1

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Funny you should say that. This book has been out for a few years.
Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions (9781595550064): Michael Savage: Books

I don't think these sorts of people have any metric with which to base these assertions on, because American conservatism (with which I'm sure they'll contrast liberalism against and present it as the only sensible alternative) has been shifting so much in recent years nobody really knows what it is.

Look at Newt Gingrich right now. You have people like Ann Coulter saying that he is the most liberal candidate, and others saying he is the furthest right wing. The whole Neo-con thing has redefined conservatism in recent years, but when you listen to the platforms of past conservative presidents they advocate for stuff such as universal health care - an issue that doesn't seem to be of interest to modern conservatives, and of course you have Ron Paul who has become prominent in part because the libertarian side of conservatism seems to have died. Newt is also calling himself a Ronald Reagan conservative, but Reagan also added to the debt a great deal, which seems to be the opposite of what modern conservatives are into.

Basically, what is right wing seems to be shifting further and further to the right every day to the point of absurdity, although with the libertarian side somewhat inconsistent and/or absent. To many people outside of this country looking in, Obama seems pretty conservative in comparison to the left/right scale they are used to, and this nonsense about him being socialist is virtually incoherent.

The conservatives may win this next election, but let's face it, the whole notion of what it means to be conservative is rather up-in-the-air right now. Liberals have always been sort of a group of mutts for as long as I have known, but their lack of definition has at least been consistent.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nowhere. They've remained consistent.

You must've completely missed my post.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's the other party that did a 360 turn and went from one extreme to the other.

A 360° turn would put them back where they started.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A 360° turn would put them back where they started.

Fine then, it was a 720º turn.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This will be my last response (hopefully). You said it *is* a Ponzi scheme.

You're right. It's worse than a Ponzi scheme because we are knowingly participating in the scheme without an option not to. Congratulations on arguing in a way that only helps to make my argument stronger.

Carrying on this discussion will be about as productive as doing so with my cat, I realize that, but hopefully somewhere inside you you can realize that it this could have been avoided by speaking accurately without these ridiculous distractions.

It could have been avoided had you just chosen to stop with the semantic arguments, when the greater point was understood and not really disputed. When your argument boils down to whether or not I should have said "like a" or "is a", you're debating the words - not the points.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You must've completely missed my post.

A 360° turn would put them back where they started.

Okay. 180. I think you understood what I meant.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A 360° turn would put them back where they started.

Again, a semantic argument. When all you can argue is definitions, your spin fails. Quit quibbling on the details and just agree with stu's broader argument (which is undefeatably sound in it's logic ... as long as you don't get into the details)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It could have been avoided had you just chosen to stop with the semantic arguments, when the greater point was understood and not really disputed. When your argument boils down to whether or not I should have said "like a" or "is a", you're debating the words - not the points.

Or, you could consider the idea that while you might feel that not offering concessions or rarely, if ever, admitting to being wrong is a sign of strength, others see it as a sign of insecurity.

[hyteckit]

Go Newt, Go!

I find it funny that more Republicans seem to be more fearful of a Newt candidacy than Democrats are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1234956.html

[OAW]

OMG ... did Rick Santorum just rattle off NORIEGA'S name in his list of US adversaries while he was answering an audience member's question about Cuban policy? We'll see if he tries to claim he didn't say it tomorrow like he did with recently with some other "interesting" remarks.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, I think stupid people shouldn't vote, but that would disenfranchise nearly half the country that votes Democrat, I suppose.

Other way around, actually.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

OMG ... did Rick Santorum just rattle off NORIEGA'S name in his list of US adversaries while he was answering an audience member's question about Cuban policy? We'll see if he tries to claim he didn't say it tomorrow like he did with recently with some other "interesting" remarks.

OAW

Here's a list. Doesn't include his most recent comments about college being liberal indoctrination.

[hyteckit]

Damn. The Republican machine and conservative media totally destroyed Newt.

So much for the Newt momentum.

I hope another Republican clown jumps into the race.

[Dork.]

Given how many times Newt has been left for dead in the media, I wouldn't count him out yet. People are listening to him!
The stuff that he says sounds enough like the truth that people believe it!

Maybe his plan is to build a moon base and then say you are allowed to have a Moon Wife and an Earth Wife....

(Seriously, though, if Newt's candidacy beings new relevancy to NASA, it's all worth it.)

[besson3c]

So many weird names this election... Newt - what's that about? Mitt - like a catcher's mitt or something? Santorum... Obama...

[Dork.]

It just occurred to me how strange it is that in a contest between a Mormon and a Catholic, the Catholic has had more wives....

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I can tell Democrats are afraid of Gingrich by the level of seething hatred they have towards him. Hatred is always an indicator of fear, and the hatred towards Gingrich (and Santorum) is off the charts.

I can't figure out if it's Republicans or Democrats who are more fearful of Gingrich.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I can't figure out if it's Republicans or Democrats who are more fearful of Gingrich.

They both do IMO. Republicans are afraid Newt is one gaffe away from Bozo the Clown and Democrats are afraid Gingrich is one debate away from making Obama look like the hopeless incompetent that he is.

[lpkmckenna]

You guys are nuts. The Democrats are praying that Gingrich wins the nomination.

After all, we're talking about a guy who preaches about the enormous expense of unionized janitors, then advocates a permanent moon base with thousands of Americans living there. And of course, he advocates it in Florida in the most blatant, pathetic, and transparent pandering seen in this race. All the while demanding more tax cuts for unemployed vulture capitalists like Mitt Romney.