02-11-2009, 12:22 PM
Hemis, I won't quote your entire point about the 80's being worse, but you are COMPLETELY missing mine. I didn't say things were worse now. I said, according to just about anyone who knows anything, it WILL be worse. Of course we don't KNOW for certain what will happen. But that's a complete copout. I don't KNOW that the Cubs will finish ahead of the Pirates, but it's not unreasonable for me to look at the facts and still say with some certainty they will.
Your point would be much more reasonable if Obama was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness that things could be worse than the 80's. He's not. Pretty much everyone agrees with him. Maybe Sean Hannity doesn't, but as I stated in other posts, please find me a respectable economist who doesn't agree exactly with what Obama is saying. which to me, says that Obama isn't so much peddling fear, as he is telling the truth.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........How many times were we attacked after 9/11?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, this is the kind of "logic" that really fucking frosts my ass. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions.
After Clinton was in office for 2 months in February 1993, we were attacked by foreign invaders when the WTC was bombed by foreign terrorists. My questions:
1: How many times, under Clinton, were we attacked on domestic soil after that?
2: To reach this number (zero), did Clinton have to tap our phones illegally?
3: Did Clinton have to lock up anyone without trial?
4: Did Clinton have to torture anyone?
5: Did Clinton have to invade any countries which posed no specific threat to the United States?
If we are to assume the lack of an attack is proof that the person in charge "kept us safe", then isn't Clinton's Administration proof that it can be done without raping the constitution and involving us in a costly and unpopular war?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is exactly the true comparison and EXACTLY why the Republicans are wrong. This is not ideology. This is fact. I might have the numbers somewhat wrong, but according to studies done by Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are a TERRIBLE stimulus. I believe that the figures are something along the lines of the fact that a one dollar tax cut will bring about $1.02 of stimulus. One dollar of direct spending will bring about $1.73 of stimulus. These are facts, not opinions. We DO know. So if one party is advocating a policy which brings in $1.73 per dollar, and one is advocating a policy which brings in $1.02, the latter party is WRONG. Misguided. Ignorant. Whatever term you want to use. This is not my opinion. This is provable mathematics.
Put it another way, maybe both parties are filled with idiots. But if the Dems generic response is to spend money, and the Repubs is to cut taxes, the Dems generic response is the CORRECT one, if you are talking about a stimulus. plan.
Lastly, what would you call McCain, if the consensus is we need spending, we need it now, we need it to stimulate the economy, and he calls for LESS spending, put it out farther in the future, and wants to use the least effective way to do it? That's BAD policy. And it would indicate to me someone who is either so blindly partisan he can't see the facts on the ground, or he is less informed than he needs to be on the subject. You pick one.
Your point would be much more reasonable if Obama was the lone voice screaming in the wilderness that things could be worse than the 80's. He's not. Pretty much everyone agrees with him. Maybe Sean Hannity doesn't, but as I stated in other posts, please find me a respectable economist who doesn't agree exactly with what Obama is saying. which to me, says that Obama isn't so much peddling fear, as he is telling the truth.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->After Bush was in office on 9/11, 9 months into his presidency and we were attacked by foriegn invaders for only the second time in modern history........How many times were we attacked after 9/11?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, this is the kind of "logic" that really fucking frosts my ass. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions.
After Clinton was in office for 2 months in February 1993, we were attacked by foreign invaders when the WTC was bombed by foreign terrorists. My questions:
1: How many times, under Clinton, were we attacked on domestic soil after that?
2: To reach this number (zero), did Clinton have to tap our phones illegally?
3: Did Clinton have to lock up anyone without trial?
4: Did Clinton have to torture anyone?
5: Did Clinton have to invade any countries which posed no specific threat to the United States?
If we are to assume the lack of an attack is proof that the person in charge "kept us safe", then isn't Clinton's Administration proof that it can be done without raping the constitution and involving us in a costly and unpopular war?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->What the true comparision is, is direct spending : tax cuts. Democrats want 2:1 in favor of direct spending, Republians want 2:1 in favor of tax cuts. Now we can go round and round on this subject but the bottom line is that none of us know and I will concede that it's just as much opinion and conjecture as anything else. To think that any political party is anymore or less informed than their counter-party constituants sir is blatantly absurd.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is exactly the true comparison and EXACTLY why the Republicans are wrong. This is not ideology. This is fact. I might have the numbers somewhat wrong, but according to studies done by Moodys and the CBO, tax cuts are a TERRIBLE stimulus. I believe that the figures are something along the lines of the fact that a one dollar tax cut will bring about $1.02 of stimulus. One dollar of direct spending will bring about $1.73 of stimulus. These are facts, not opinions. We DO know. So if one party is advocating a policy which brings in $1.73 per dollar, and one is advocating a policy which brings in $1.02, the latter party is WRONG. Misguided. Ignorant. Whatever term you want to use. This is not my opinion. This is provable mathematics.
Put it another way, maybe both parties are filled with idiots. But if the Dems generic response is to spend money, and the Repubs is to cut taxes, the Dems generic response is the CORRECT one, if you are talking about a stimulus. plan.
Lastly, what would you call McCain, if the consensus is we need spending, we need it now, we need it to stimulate the economy, and he calls for LESS spending, put it out farther in the future, and wants to use the least effective way to do it? That's BAD policy. And it would indicate to me someone who is either so blindly partisan he can't see the facts on the ground, or he is less informed than he needs to be on the subject. You pick one.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.