Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 509 510 [511] 512 513 ... 714

Author Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over  (Read 763433 times)

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7650 on: November 01, 2012, 09:01:58 pm »

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7651 on: November 01, 2012, 09:04:34 pm »

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

I don't think his budget assumes 4% growth.  I don't remember that and I can't find it anyway.  4% of GDP is the amount it holds all non-entitlement spending to, as Nadaka just detailed.  Maybe that's what you are getting it from?  But Ryan's assumptions work equally well whether we suffer a complete economic collapse or achieve the singularity.  That's because his budget isn't an actual budget, it's just setting a percentage.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Kogan Loloklam

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm suffering from an acute case of Hominini Terravitae Biologis. Keep your distance!
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7652 on: November 01, 2012, 09:07:09 pm »

Colorado hates Texas and Dislikes California. We so need to find out the path to the presidency via state bashing!
Logged
... if someone dies TOUGH LUCK. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED ATTENTION DURING ALL THE DAMNED DODGING DEMONSTRATIONS!

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7653 on: November 01, 2012, 09:09:03 pm »

Again, we're not debating that it is true that the Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. We're saying that your conclusion that "Senate can't pass a budget" equates to "Obama is a hardliner and completely unwilling to compromise" is idiotic. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring that or what.

If you look at my first post earlier tonight, my point, before responding to insults, was that if Obama wins, he will be inheriting a real mess, but this time he won't be able to complain he inherited the mess from the previous president since he will be the previous president. It was a disgrace to the office of the presidency that he blamed Bush and Republicans over and over and over again despite the fact that he inherited the mess from a democratically-controlled House and a democratically-controller Senate of which he was a member. He could have said as a senator "Wait, if we pass these budgets, the next president will inherit budget deficits." But he voted for the budgets those two years, became president, and then claimed he inherited budget deficits. From whom? Pelosi? Reid? Senator Barrack Obama?

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

Now, if he wins, he can't blame the Senate because the Senate has been controlled by democrats for the last six years. He can, and probably will, blame the  House, but the dems have controlled the House for four of the last six years. My point is he will find someone to blame. It is in his nature.

Re-electing Obama as president is like the captain of the Titanic purposely backing up after hitting the iceburg to hit it again. Once is more than enough.

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7654 on: November 01, 2012, 09:13:39 pm »

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7655 on: November 01, 2012, 09:14:36 pm »

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.
What.

You do realize that who voted for what is well documented? It's certainly provable who's more partisan (on average) here. That isn't an issue of subjectivity.

I'm not the one to bring out statistics though, since I haven't a clue where to find them.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7656 on: November 01, 2012, 09:15:11 pm »

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

No, it did not cut spending. Um, who in Congess or the Presidency has a plan to cut spending?
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7657 on: November 01, 2012, 09:15:34 pm »

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true
Wait, seriously?  You're not going to spend 3 minutes or so checking this?

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/#.UJMrncUxpqE

It's not true.  In any case the main contributor to the deficit, the Bush Tax Cuts, were passed before Obama was in the Senate.  He can't be blamed for not voting against that.  Same for the major military interventions.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.
Oh, it's on.
Logged

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7658 on: November 01, 2012, 09:16:16 pm »

not realizing that I am right.
whenever I hear someone saying that non-jokingly in an argument, I die inside a little.

Google it.
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7659 on: November 01, 2012, 09:16:42 pm »

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

http://votesmart.org/bill/4163/12952/9490/emergency-departmental-supplemental-appropriations-bill-of-2007#.UJMthsXfvMg
http://votesmart.org/bill/3391/7824/9490/military-commissions-act-of-2006#.UJMuCMXfvMg
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 09:21:19 pm by Shadowlord »
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7660 on: November 01, 2012, 09:18:02 pm »

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7661 on: November 01, 2012, 09:19:26 pm »

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

You... do realize that we just posted documented evidence that you are wrong. Even before you made this statement.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7662 on: November 01, 2012, 09:20:53 pm »

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

Kon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7663 on: November 01, 2012, 09:22:12 pm »

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.
why don't you?

if you are so good at economics, prove it. prove that you understand the system far better than any man on earth, or any coordinated group of men that have tried to predict how an economy will turn out.

That's known as a 'straw man.' Shall I Google that for you?
Logged
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread
« Reply #7664 on: November 01, 2012, 09:23:31 pm »

I like how you insist we use Google to help enlighten us on complex economic arguments, but post a completely incorrect point of fact that a Google search would immediately have told you was wrong
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 509 510 [511] 512 513 ... 714