Technogeek wrote:
As opposed to the party giving entitlements & handouts to millionaires.
Your definition of "entitlements and handouts" is clearly radically different than mine. Since when is not taking as much money from someone a handout?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Democrats say F U to voters
Senate Democrats say F U to votersFollow
Your definition of "entitlements and handouts" is clearly radically different than mine. Since when is not taking as much money from someone a handout?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You mean Bush's bailout of Wall St. wasn't a handout?
Meh, you get one liners from me, you're like talking to a brick wall anyway.
Meh, you get one liners from me, you're like talking to a brick wall anyway.
Technogeek wrote:
You mean Bush's bailout of Wall St. wasn't a handout?
If by handout, you mean "loan that you have to pay back with interest", then I suppose you have a point. Oh wait! You really don't have a point, do you?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
MoebiusLord wrote:
So, they're in favor of health care reform of some sort as long as it isn't forced down their throats by a big, bloated, inefficient government bureaucracy? Sounds like they're not in favor of the plan as enacted to me. That must make me right and you reaching. F'uck off.
Yeah, that's some pretty massive naivete to think this has anything to do with not liking one component of the bill. People have been sold against the bill, pretty much regardless of its contents. How many still think there are death panels in it anyway?
Edited, Dec 15th 2010 6:18pm by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
Yeah, that's some pretty massive naivete to think this has anything to do with not liking one component of the bill.
That's like saying "I like beef. If only I could have if without killing a cow." The mandate is integral to the law. What else do you have?
Allegory wrote:
How many still think there are death panels in it anyway?
It's totally irrational of them, I know. Most people don't understand the idea behind setting up advisory panels to determine what care is and isn't going to be covered. They also don't know how to ignore people in key roles trying to sell the idea of rationing health care as a way to control costs. They make things like logical conclusions and imagine the worst possible outcome. They should all be more like you and believe that government knows best about how to manage health care.
MoebiusLord wrote:
That's like saying "I like beef. If only I could have if without killing a cow." The mandate is integral to the law. What else do you have?
So not only are you presuming that the majority of people are willing to throw out the babies with the bathwater, but you're also giving the majority of people the benefit of the doubt that they can correctly connect the details of the bill with the bill itself. Forget the death panels, an AP poll showed that 81% of those polled believed the CBO rated the bill as increasing the deficit. There is correlated misinformation about the bill--and without speculating as to who is purveying it and for what purpose--it's naive to think that people are rejecting the whole bill based on any single provision when most people don't even know what is in the bill.
Edited, Dec 15th 2010 7:37pm by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
That's like saying "I like beef. If only I could have if without killing a cow." The mandate is integral to the law. What else do you have?
So not only are you presuming that the majority of people are willing to throw out the babies with the bathwater, but you're also giving the majority of people the benefit of the doubt that they can correctly connect the details of the bill with the bill itself.
I'm sure none of that had anything at all to do with the whole "we'll read what's in it after we vote on it" approach to passing it in the first place. You have to admit, the thing was a freaking moving target the whole time. Why be surprised that most people don't know for sure what ended out in the final version?
But people do take broad positions on things like whether their tax dollars should pay for other people's health care (or abortions even), or whether they can be forced to buy health insurance, or any of a number of other aspects of the issue itself which don't really rely on any specifics contained within the bill itself.
Fun fact: The same AP poll you mentioned found that opposition of the bill did not vary among Republican respondents based on how well they knew the facts about the bill. It did vary wildly among Democrats and independents though. So I suppose we have uniformed Democrats and Independents to blame.
Quote:
Forget the death panels, an AP poll showed that 81% of those polled believed the CBO rated the bill as increasing the deficit.
That's not really misinformation about the bill so much as most people not knowing anything about the CBO. You ask them if the CBO found that the bill would increase or decrease the deficit, and they don't know what the CBO is, but they darn well know that the bill will increase the deficit, what do you think they're going to say?
One might argue that this means that 81% of the public is better at figuring out whether something is going to cost them more money than the CBO is. In fact, I will argue this (and have!).
Given the likelihood that the mandated purchase of health insurance will be found to be unconstitutional, that argument just gets stronger and stronger. And that's on top of the already blatantly flawed "collect funds for 10 years, pay out benefits for only 6 years, and assess just that 10 years of cost" methodology used by the CBO in the first place. This whole thing is laughably predictable. Sad, but predictable.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
This assumes that poor and working class people agree with you that entitlements and handouts are actually in their best interest. It's a bit more complex than simply saying that he who provides the best goodies to the most people wins.
No, this assumes that the GOP is more socially conservative and lots of stupid voters vote based on social issues. So yeah, it's more complex. The GOP gets to appeal to people's religion, and to an idiot, preventing abortion and gay marriage are more important than things like social services.
Quote:
Fun fact: The same AP poll you mentioned found that opposition of the bill did not vary among Republican respondents based on how well they knew the facts about the bill.
Gasp! You mean Republicans opposed Obama's bill regardless of what was in it!? I am SHOCKED!
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
This assumes that poor and working class people agree with you that entitlements and handouts are actually in their best interest. It's a bit more complex than simply saying that he who provides the best goodies to the most people wins.
No, this assumes that the GOP is more socially conservative and lots of stupid voters vote based on social issues.
Non sequitur much? Monkeys at the zoo don't fling poo this randomly.
Quote:
So yeah, it's more complex. The GOP gets to appeal to people's religion, and to an idiot, preventing abortion and gay marriage are more important than things like social services.
What does this have to do with the Democrats appealing to the interests of the "lower classes" which you mentioned originally? Do you always just change the subject when things don't go your way?
Quote:
Quote:
Fun fact: The same AP poll you mentioned found that opposition of the bill did not vary among Republican respondents based on how well they knew the facts about the bill.
Gasp! You mean Republicans opposed Obama's bill regardless of what was in it!? I am SHOCKED!
That's like being shocked that Jews were opposed to the **** "Final Solution", and continued to do so no matter how much they learned about it. In other words, not very shocking.
too much Godwins?
How about this then: You hate fruitcake. No amount of your aunt Gertrude informing you about all the delicious ingredients in her fruitcake is likely to change your mind about eating it. Now perhaps some gullible person who doesn't know how bad fruitcake really is might be persuaded by her talking it up into taking a bite. But just like with the health care bill, they'll regret it later. Better?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's not a non sequitur or a change of subject just because you don't understand it, gbaji.
I pointed out that Democrats have the best interest of the majority of the people. You countered with an economic reason for their support of the GOP. I pointed out that the reasons tend to be more social than economic.
Sorry if I thought you might be able to keep up with that simple train of logic. I should have known better.
That's actually a fair analogy. They don't like fruitcake even though it's better for them than the cake they want. They're too focused on taste to know what's good for them, like little kids.
Edited, Dec 15th 2010 8:31pm by Kachi
I pointed out that Democrats have the best interest of the majority of the people. You countered with an economic reason for their support of the GOP. I pointed out that the reasons tend to be more social than economic.
Sorry if I thought you might be able to keep up with that simple train of logic. I should have known better.
Quote:
How about this then: You hate fruitcake. No amount of your aunt Gertrude informing you about all the delicious ingredients in her fruitcake is likely to change your mind about eating it. Now perhaps some gullible person who doesn't know how bad fruitcake really is might be persuaded by her talking it up into taking a bite. But just like with the health care bill, they'll regret it later. Better?
That's actually a fair analogy. They don't like fruitcake even though it's better for them than the cake they want. They're too focused on taste to know what's good for them, like little kids.
Edited, Dec 15th 2010 8:31pm by Kachi
gbaji wrote:
That's not really misinformation about the bill so much as most people not knowing anything about the CBO. You ask them if the CBO found that the bill would increase or decrease the deficit, and they don't know what the CBO is, but they darn well know that the bill will increase the deficit, what do you think they're going to say?
You're making an assumption in stating that most people do not know about the CBO, but I'll grant that to you. So in return, allow me to speculate that most people do not know the specific costs of the bill, could not even ballpark them, and have not done any crunching themselves to attempt to figure out if it would increase the deficit.
Regardless of what the bill actually achieves, most people judging it for themselves would be entirely blindly guessing. They have no facts. You're assuming that people with typically no mathematical or economic background and knowing pretty much none of the data are more likely to make a correct assessment of the cost of the bill than an organization set up to do exactly that. The CBO can be wrong, but they're not more likely to be wrong than a random passerby on the street. If you honestly believe the contrary, that literally--without hyperbole--a random person from this poll is more suited to assessing the cost of the bill, then you are incredibly stupid. I'm going to assume you were using hyperbole.
gbaji wrote:
One might argue that this means that 81% of the public is better at figuring out whether something is going to cost them more money than the CBO is. In fact, I will argue this (and have!).
That's a very, very bad argument.
Edited, Dec 15th 2010 10:53pm by Allegory
Quote:
That's actually a fair analogy. They don't like fruitcake even though it's better for them than the cake they want. They're too focused on taste to know what's good for them, like little kids.
Even gbaji's verbal barricades are preferable to this ****. See, he's such a pompous buffoon that he's like some kind of latter day Polonius - an absurd, comic figure. It's hard to take him seriously enough to really dislike him, you know?
You just seem to be fundamentally unpleasant, and it comes across all too clearly in posts like these.
8 billion people in the world don't care if I drop dead tomorrow. I'm finding it difficult to care that one more person on zam doesn't like me. Especially for the way I treat gbaji (lol).
If you're not a thick **** to me, you won't get any abuse from me. Remember that if you care about how I treat you on a forum, and if you don't care, reflect then on why I should.
If you're not a thick **** to me, you won't get any abuse from me. Remember that if you care about how I treat you on a forum, and if you don't care, reflect then on why I should.
Kachi wrote:
8 billion people in the world don't care if I drop dead tomorrow. I'm finding it difficult to care that one more person on zam doesn't like me. Especially for the way I treat gbaji (lol).
If you're not a thick **** to me, you won't get any abuse from me. Remember that if you care about how I treat you on a forum, and if you don't care, reflect then on why I should.
If you're not a thick **** to me, you won't get any abuse from me. Remember that if you care about how I treat you on a forum, and if you don't care, reflect then on why I should.
What world do you live on? Best we can get you here is somewhere south of 7 billion.
If it makes you feel any better I think you're an *** clown.
Well you tend to agree with gbaji, which I think says all that needs to be said of what I think of you.
Up until now, you were exempted by the "not a thick **** to me" clause.
Up until now, you were exempted by the "not a thick **** to me" clause.
Kachi wrote:
Well you tend to agree with gbaji, which I think says all that needs to be said of what I think of you.
Up until now, you were exempted by the "not a thick **** to me" clause.
Up until now, you were exempted by the "not a thick **** to me" clause.
Umm, sorry? If I'd paid more attention I can assure you I would have called you a thalidomide baby sooner.
Kachi wrote:
It's not a non sequitur or a change of subject just because you don't understand it, gbaji.
I pointed out that Democrats have the best interest of the majority of the people. You countered with an economic reason for their support of the GOP. I pointed out that the reasons tend to be more social than economic.
I pointed out that Democrats have the best interest of the majority of the people. You countered with an economic reason for their support of the GOP. I pointed out that the reasons tend to be more social than economic.
I'm reasonably certain that the "social reasons" why you think the "lower classes" best interests would lie with the Democrats are also overwhelmingly economic ones as well. If I misunderstood that you were talking about how poor people statistically don't like religion, so their interests must lie with a party that you don't perceive as being too pro-religion, it might be because you failed utterly to get that point across or even write something remotely close to being possible to interpret within that context. That and the point itself is pretty darn moronic.
Forgive me, but I'm going to continue to assume that you did mean that statement economically, and just pulled the whole "But the GOP is pushing God on us!" bit out of your rear after you figured out you'd argued yourself into a corner.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
To a far far better response:
You're making an assumption in stating that most people do not know about the CBO, but I'll grant that to you. So in return, allow me to speculate that most people do not know the specific costs of the bill, could not even ballpark them, and have not done any crunching themselves to attempt to figure out if it would increase the deficit.
Ok. I'll accept that assumption as well.
I disagree. You don't have to be an expert in math, or even have access to the exact numbers and facts and do any math at all to figure out that if you expand the benefits provided by the health care system, it will have to cost more. The only math skills you need are "more stuff costs more money", which pretty much everyone can figure out.
When you then realize that the government is trying to insist that it can provide that "more stuff", without raising any taxes, it also does not take any particular mathematical skills to figure out that this means we'll end out with a deficit. No amount of the CBO scoring it differently will sway people from the common sense conclusions they've already adopted. It's like a doctor insisting that you can jump off that 100 foot cliff and not suffer a scratch. What he's saying flies so firmly in the face of your own experiences that you don't believe him, no matter how much of an "expert" he is.
You're misstating the issue though. It's not about a random bystander being better suited to assessing the cost of the bill, but that a random bystander will be better suited to assessing whether the bill will cost more than the government is claiming. That requires no special skill. It requires only that one have lived long enough to see a pretty clear pattern of pretty much every program the government ever creates costing more than it says it will when it passes the law creating the program in the first place. I don't have to know *why* it will, and those who put their faith in CBO scorings can argue against it, but if we were to place odds on it in Vegas, which side would the house favor?
To most people, the CBO is just some government organization that is wrong about how much things will cost most of the time. They don't need to be more capable of deriving an exact number to be able to consistently guess that the number the CBO gives them is likely to be wrong.
That's a very, very bad argument.
Historically, it's a very very good argument. The CBOs track record, especially with large social spending programs, is pretty nearly 100% wrong in the "it cost a hell of a lot more than they said it would" direction. I know why this is, and anyone who understands how the CBO scores bills knows why this is, but even those who don't know are still likely to see the pattern.
The CBO is a "garbage in - garbage out" operation. They don't estimate the economic effects of things over time. They simply do math on the numbers given to them. How many years of estimate? How much assumed revenue each year during that time period? How much yearly costs each year over that time period? It's a bit more involved than that, but not a whole lot. And anyone who can do the same math the guys at the CBO do can reverse the math and derive the assumptions they need to provide in order to get the score they want. It's not rocket science even.
And in this particular case, even if we toss out the incredibly unlikely economic growth assumptions used, there are two absolutely huge and glaring assumptions which should trigger anyone's BS-o-meter:
1. They assessed for a 10 year period of time, assuming revenue for the whole 10 years, but with costs only phasing in after 4 years. Thus, to get a bill that is just barely balanced, they have to collect 66% more years of revenue than they are paying in costs. I don't need to do more than simple math to realize that while the first 10 years may be balanced, the next 10 wont be. But since the CBO only scored for 10 years, it comes back as balanced. GIGO!
2. They assume that insurance purchase mandates will pass constitutional muster. Most of us started out knowing this likely wouldn't fly, and it's increasingly looking like the courts are going to agree with us. Without the revenue from 10s of millions of healthy people who don't cost much to insure, the bill cannot cover its costs and will not be balanced even for the first 10 years, much much less the next 10.
The point being that the knee-jerk ignorant persons reaction is right. Again. And the educated persons reliance on official organizations to tell them what will happen is wrong. Again. Shocking!
Edited, Dec 16th 2010 3:06pm by gbaji
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not really misinformation about the bill so much as most people not knowing anything about the CBO. You ask them if the CBO found that the bill would increase or decrease the deficit, and they don't know what the CBO is, but they darn well know that the bill will increase the deficit, what do you think they're going to say?
You're making an assumption in stating that most people do not know about the CBO, but I'll grant that to you. So in return, allow me to speculate that most people do not know the specific costs of the bill, could not even ballpark them, and have not done any crunching themselves to attempt to figure out if it would increase the deficit.
Ok. I'll accept that assumption as well.
Quote:
Regardless of what the bill actually achieves, most people judging it for themselves would be entirely blindly guessing. They have no facts. You're assuming that people with typically no mathematical or economic background and knowing pretty much none of the data are more likely to make a correct assessment of the cost of the bill than an organization set up to do exactly that.
I disagree. You don't have to be an expert in math, or even have access to the exact numbers and facts and do any math at all to figure out that if you expand the benefits provided by the health care system, it will have to cost more. The only math skills you need are "more stuff costs more money", which pretty much everyone can figure out.
When you then realize that the government is trying to insist that it can provide that "more stuff", without raising any taxes, it also does not take any particular mathematical skills to figure out that this means we'll end out with a deficit. No amount of the CBO scoring it differently will sway people from the common sense conclusions they've already adopted. It's like a doctor insisting that you can jump off that 100 foot cliff and not suffer a scratch. What he's saying flies so firmly in the face of your own experiences that you don't believe him, no matter how much of an "expert" he is.
Quote:
The CBO can be wrong, but they're not more likely to be wrong than a random passerby on the street. If you honestly believe the contrary, that literally--without hyperbole--a random person from this poll is more suited to assessing the cost of the bill, then you are incredibly stupid. I'm going to assume you were using hyperbole.
You're misstating the issue though. It's not about a random bystander being better suited to assessing the cost of the bill, but that a random bystander will be better suited to assessing whether the bill will cost more than the government is claiming. That requires no special skill. It requires only that one have lived long enough to see a pretty clear pattern of pretty much every program the government ever creates costing more than it says it will when it passes the law creating the program in the first place. I don't have to know *why* it will, and those who put their faith in CBO scorings can argue against it, but if we were to place odds on it in Vegas, which side would the house favor?
To most people, the CBO is just some government organization that is wrong about how much things will cost most of the time. They don't need to be more capable of deriving an exact number to be able to consistently guess that the number the CBO gives them is likely to be wrong.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
One might argue that this means that 81% of the public is better at figuring out whether something is going to cost them more money than the CBO is. In fact, I will argue this (and have!).
That's a very, very bad argument.
Historically, it's a very very good argument. The CBOs track record, especially with large social spending programs, is pretty nearly 100% wrong in the "it cost a hell of a lot more than they said it would" direction. I know why this is, and anyone who understands how the CBO scores bills knows why this is, but even those who don't know are still likely to see the pattern.
The CBO is a "garbage in - garbage out" operation. They don't estimate the economic effects of things over time. They simply do math on the numbers given to them. How many years of estimate? How much assumed revenue each year during that time period? How much yearly costs each year over that time period? It's a bit more involved than that, but not a whole lot. And anyone who can do the same math the guys at the CBO do can reverse the math and derive the assumptions they need to provide in order to get the score they want. It's not rocket science even.
And in this particular case, even if we toss out the incredibly unlikely economic growth assumptions used, there are two absolutely huge and glaring assumptions which should trigger anyone's BS-o-meter:
1. They assessed for a 10 year period of time, assuming revenue for the whole 10 years, but with costs only phasing in after 4 years. Thus, to get a bill that is just barely balanced, they have to collect 66% more years of revenue than they are paying in costs. I don't need to do more than simple math to realize that while the first 10 years may be balanced, the next 10 wont be. But since the CBO only scored for 10 years, it comes back as balanced. GIGO!
2. They assume that insurance purchase mandates will pass constitutional muster. Most of us started out knowing this likely wouldn't fly, and it's increasingly looking like the courts are going to agree with us. Without the revenue from 10s of millions of healthy people who don't cost much to insure, the bill cannot cover its costs and will not be balanced even for the first 10 years, much much less the next 10.
The point being that the knee-jerk ignorant persons reaction is right. Again. And the educated persons reliance on official organizations to tell them what will happen is wrong. Again. Shocking!
Edited, Dec 16th 2010 3:06pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Umm, sorry? If I'd paid more attention I can assure you I would have called you a thalidomide baby sooner.
A challenger approaches!
@gbaji; So, you would actually argue that voter partisanship is driven less by social issues than fiscal ones? Or are you just too stupid to connect two dots and see my very obvious point? (Psst, it's that most voters pick their party based predominantly on social issues and then believe what that party tells them about the economy.)
Kachi wrote:
@gbaji; So, you would actually argue that voter partisanship is driven less by social issues than fiscal ones?
I already answered this. The overwhelming majority of the "social issue" which the Democrats run on are also "fiscal issues" (more correctly "economic issues"). Big government social programs cost money. Thus all of those are by necessity also fiscal issues.
You do actually touch on a decent point (or at least make an observation possible): The left tends to view these things in the context of their social value, while the right tends to look at their economic cost. And both sides can occasionally argue right past each other because of this.
But even of those issues which can be said to be social but are not also economic, it's telling that you went to the "GOP supports God!" angle. That's incredibly weak within the context of this discussion, but I suppose it works as a cheap attack. Hence why I called it a non sequitur.
Quote:
Or are you just too stupid to connect two dots and see my very obvious point? (Psst, it's that most voters pick their party based predominantly on social issues and then believe what that party tells them about the economy.)
Do you honestly believe this? Really? Do you think that the majority of Democratic Party voters place more weight in gay rights than wealth redistribution? When the Democrats took office, did they get right on with immigration reform and gay marriage? Or did they jump right into an agenda to massively increase spending on alternative energy projects, subsidizing more fuel efficient cars and light bulbs, funneling more money into our public school system and our health care system, funding after school programs, extending unemployment benefits, and a host of other social spending programs? Do you honestly believe that more people voted Democrat in 2008 in order to ensure equal rights than did so in the hope that their entitlement programs might be extended or expanded?
Certainly, in the context of the best interest of the "lower classes", it's hard to miss that this is about economic benefits for themselves. That's why poor people vote Democrat. While you may label that as a "social issue", the self interest of the voters in those economic ranges is purely about economics. They want their own lives improved and believe that big government programs will best do this. That was what you were talking about, right? Are you seriously going to keep claiming that you really meant something else?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The left tends to view these things in the context of their social value, while the right tends to look at their economic cost.
Hahahaha...
The fact that you go to great logical distortions to try and justify the Right's social issues through an economic prism and therefore feel better about supporting their objectives does not mean that "the right tends to look at their economic cost". Newsflash: Most people objecting to homosexual marriage or stem cell research or DADT repeal or abortion or whatever the social issue du jour is are basing it on emotionality, not some hard thought economic projection. I know you hate to admit this is true because it forces you to admit that a whole lot of people on your side just plain don't like gay folk or base their political philosophies primarily upon religion but that's th sort of thing that everyone else is able to admit even if you can't (or need to make yourself feel better by saying "But they're not REAL conservatives...")
Incidentally, I'm not claiming that you personally don't like gay folk or whatever. In fact, this is exactly why you're forced to make such absurd and amusing logical jumps when arguing. You know your side feels this way and you have a pathological need to defend your side no matter what so... well... if we pretend this is this and that actually means this other thing... we can defend them by pretending that it's actually all about taxes and not really plain ole social backlash!
Edited, Dec 16th 2010 5:52pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nadenu wrote:
varus keeps talking about all the publicly educated people on this board as if he's not one of them.
Private school, varus? Southern Baptist private school?? Never heard of it. Although I guess anything's possible in your freaky world.
Private school, varus? Southern Baptist private school?? Never heard of it. Although I guess anything's possible in your freaky world.
Quote:
Actually the election proved that:
- Money talks
- Americans are pretty damn gullible.
- Money talks
- Americans are pretty damn gullible.
see:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
http://liesandstats.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/misleading-americans-about-public-health-care/
http://severinwatch.com/2009/07/29/jay-severins-whoppers-on-health-care/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-bottari/pants-on-fire-the-whopper_b_783220.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090824-healthcare-myths.html
Pretty much what Joph said. I would add some things to it, but not worth the effort.
You were right that social and fiscal issues overlap, but also completely missing the point.
You were right that social and fiscal issues overlap, but also completely missing the point.
Just curious as an outside bystander but over the last decade who was responsible for spending more money the dems or the GOP, in the decade before that? Where I live is very closely tied to the US economy its called southwestern ontario, you may have heard of it, only billions of trade goes down the highway 10 minutes from my house each year. Ive seen clinton clean up Reagan's trickle down ecconomics mess, Ive seen Bush destroy what progress the Clinton WH made, Ive seen Obama get slammed by a deficit that he had very little to do with (he did vote on things in the senate so).
I guess what I am trying to say is, how many times do the Dems need to bail out what the GoP has done? I mean they get sh*t on fo spending money they didn't spend. Hell there are GoP pundits that still think the ecconomic recovry package was obamas foul up, when it took place several months before he took office.
Really though, just from an outside perspective, your Conservative group wastes more money than the DEMs do. I mean have you personally ever benefited from tax cuts that cover 10% of Americans?
Now don't get me wrong, I think Obama has done just as much harm as good, but really the political mudslinging you guys do/put up with down there is ridiculous. Nothing has changed in your country in over 20 years the poor get poorer the rich get richer, and your worldwide presence approaches "laughing stock" more and more every year. Don't you think its time to tell all politicians they are terrible and fire them all and get new ones. Hell half the time they only vote when they get a kickback anyway.
The people in our countries need to stand up before we just become nations controlled by corporate back benching and political bribes, because the same goes for sh*theads on the hill in my country too, its not all roses up here either.
Edited, Dec 16th 2010 7:20pm by rdmcandie
I guess what I am trying to say is, how many times do the Dems need to bail out what the GoP has done? I mean they get sh*t on fo spending money they didn't spend. Hell there are GoP pundits that still think the ecconomic recovry package was obamas foul up, when it took place several months before he took office.
Really though, just from an outside perspective, your Conservative group wastes more money than the DEMs do. I mean have you personally ever benefited from tax cuts that cover 10% of Americans?
Now don't get me wrong, I think Obama has done just as much harm as good, but really the political mudslinging you guys do/put up with down there is ridiculous. Nothing has changed in your country in over 20 years the poor get poorer the rich get richer, and your worldwide presence approaches "laughing stock" more and more every year. Don't you think its time to tell all politicians they are terrible and fire them all and get new ones. Hell half the time they only vote when they get a kickback anyway.
The people in our countries need to stand up before we just become nations controlled by corporate back benching and political bribes, because the same goes for sh*theads on the hill in my country too, its not all roses up here either.
Edited, Dec 16th 2010 7:20pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
gbaji wrote:
I disagree. You don't have to be an expert in math, or even have access to the exact numbers and facts and do any math at all to figure out that if you expand the benefits provided by the health care system, it will have to cost more. The only math skills you need are "more stuff costs more money", which pretty much everyone can figure out.
Completely wrong. You disagree that the health care plan is deficit neutral, but you do admit that through taxation it covers some portion of its cost correct? You don't believe it's 100% deficit spending with zero tax income supporting it?
Do you understand now why you can't guess at the effect without having the numbers? You have two opposing vectors, cost and revenue. If a product costs some amount of money and I sell it for some other amount of money have I made a profit, loss, or broken even? If I sale a ship up stream at some velocity against a current moving oppositely at some other velocity, am I moving up stream, downstream, or standing still?
You need numbers. Arguing that you can determine the direction of a resultant vector without the magnitudes of the two added opposing vectors is a laughable idea that would fail you high school geometry.
gbaji wrote:
You're misstating the issue though. It's not about a random bystander being better suited to assessing the cost of the bill, but that a random bystander will be better suited to assessing whether the bill will cost more than the government is claiming.
That isn't what you said.
gbaji wrote:
That's not really misinformation about the bill so much as most people not knowing anything about the CBO. You ask them if the CBO found that the bill would increase or decrease the deficit, and they don't know what the CBO is, but they darn well know that the bill will increase the deficit, what do you think they're going to say?
You didn't say they know the bill would increase the deficit more than the government stated. You said they knew the bill would increase the deficit.
Even if I allow you to retroactively change your argument, you're still wrong. People still need education and data to figure out if the deficit cost is beyond what is stated by the government. You're not even digging deeper at this point, you've hit rock bottom and started tunneling sideways.
Recent Visitors: 175
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (175)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Democrats say F U to voters
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC