Too bad the same thing can't happen here. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I know. And Obama should be impeached for saying there were 57 states. Inaccuracy should be prosecuted harshly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sure, an off-the-cuff comment and a formal proposal should be treated the same way. Why not!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And in their defense, they didn't make a decimal error -- they projected 10 years of spending. Which would be perfectly reasonable if the program hadn't already ended.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That was a pretty scathing article.
I'm withholding judgment until I see some sort of official budget from the Republicans. It could be that someone just tossed those ideas out without realizing they'd already ended, and I won't fault someone, automatically, for an informal slip of the mind.
I'm going to wait for them to come up with a budget, and for Obama debt Commission to come up with suggestions. This could really be an interesting year for dollars and sense. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That was a pretty scathing article.
I'm withholding judgment until I see some sort of official budget from the Republicans. It could be that someone just tossed those ideas out without realizing they'd already ended, and I won't fault someone, automatically, for an informal slip of the mind.
I'm going to wait for them to come up with a budget, and for Obama debt Commission to come up with suggestions. This could really be an interesting year for dollars and sense.
With the amount of programs the government spends money on, it would be pretty easy to overlook something like that.
The article was written by somebody that is simply catering to the ignorant. I *have* to believe the author was not writing this article in an objective way. With all of the thousands of programs out there, there isn't one person out there that will know all of the intimate details about all of them. I'd be really suprised if there was.
I'll wait until I see a budget as well before I make my judgement. If the republicans can cut spending without crippling us, then I'm all for it. If not, well there is another election in 2 years and I'll help kick them out.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It could be that someone just tossed those ideas out
It was an official statement from the RSC.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The article was written by somebody that is simply catering to the ignorant.
That makes no sense. Why would a Republican Congressional candidate write that article?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I saw that. Didn't even have to say anything. It was a slightly more surreal version of exactly what I predicted for republican deficit reduction plans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It could be that someone just tossed those ideas out
quote:True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I love numbers.
What I don't love is nobody calling a spade a spade! Isn't this what the media is for? Why isn't Anderson Cooper harping on this?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:The article was written by somebody that is simply catering to the ignorant.
Ahh...if only more articles would cater to the ignorant by pointing out facts. Perhaps then people wouldn't be so ignorant. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
[ November 14, 2010, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This just in!
Politicians Say Stupid Crap.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I managed to fix it, unfortunately I could have fixed it more easily if it allowed me to say cut the total US military spending down to 1% of gdp.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
What I find funny is that "They're going to cut social security" seems to always be the fear mantra of whatever party is currently out of power.
Is it possible that this is because the reality of social security, in it's current form, is unsustainable, thus forcing whoever is in power to consider serious changes? Nah...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I could have fixed it more easily if it allowed me to say cut the total US military spending down to 1% of gdp.
At that point, you have out-of-work military nutcases launching rebellions.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I know. And Obama should be impeached for saying there were 57 states. Inaccuracy should be prosecuted harshly.
Thanks for the false equivalency! One minor misstatement from an obviously tired presidential candidate is exactly the same as an official statement from the Republican Party!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still think he was kidding. It's called using hyperbole for the sake of comedy.
If Democrats are smart (hah!) they'll pounce on this budget stuff. Drumbeat every cut they've wanted to make for years. Republicans will call them job-killers. A lot of the suggested cuts will probably cause hundreds of thousands of job losses from people directly or indirectly getting federal paychecks, but that's they way it goes when you need to tighten your belt. Really though, the whole point is to emphasize the point that Republicans both aren't serious about real deficit reduction, and aren't capable of making the big decisions necessary to close the massive budget hole. The more cuts Democrats suggest that Republicans can't support, the worse Republicans will look to their base, and the less enthusiasm they'll have in 2012.
Meanwhile, every cut Republicans support that most Americans don't like, Democrats can pounce on with a populist message saying Republicans are trying to cut jobs and kill the economy. America is just dumb enough to fall for two competing narratives like that.
Personally, I hate politics like this. With Pelosi in line to be re-elected as minority leader, God help us, I almost don't care who is in charge. She's a terrible, terrible party leader. With her in charge, I'm highly hesitant to support the Democrats, but at the end of the day, Democrats believe what they believe, and Republicans believe what they believe, and I can't support the Republican message, so, I'm stuck giving tacit approval to the Democrats. So while I hate these kinds of politics, I think Democrats could seriously do some damage with it.
The key, as always, is perception. Democrats need to portray Republicans as being in charge. "They just won a landslide victory!" "They have a huge majority in the House and a strangle-hold on the Senate!" "Speaker Boehner is on the warpath!" Whoever wins the perception war in painting the other side as being in charge will be able to reap big rewards in 2012 when that side inevitably fails to do anything productive.
Maybe if we keep this trainwreck going long enough, a real third party will emerge.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Maybe if we keep this trainwreck going long enough, a real third party will emerge.
Or as per history, some major conflict will deflect us from fighting amongst ourselves, we'll "solidify" as a nation and start talking how much we love each other because we all need to work together to stop "the enemy". Then when the conflict is over we'll wake up from the dream and start fighting amongst ourselves again and realize we are locked in a two party system.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I could have fixed it more easily if it allowed me to say cut the total US military spending down to 1% of gdp.
At that point, you have out-of-work military nutcases launching rebellions.
Not if its done gradually, say over ten years with programs to find new employment for soldiers, switch to a reserve system and reenact conscription so you make sure you have access to peacetime qualified personel.
Really its the most viable option right now.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I still think he was kidding. It's called using hyperbole for the sake of comedy.
If Democrats are smart (hah!) they'll pounce on this budget stuff. Drumbeat every cut they've wanted to make for years. Republicans will call them job-killers. A lot of the suggested cuts will probably cause hundreds of thousands of job losses from people directly or indirectly getting federal paychecks, but that's they way it goes when you need to tighten your belt. Really though, the whole point is to emphasize the point that Republicans both aren't serious about real deficit reduction, and aren't capable of making the big decisions necessary to close the massive budget hole. The more cuts Democrats suggest that Republicans can't support, the worse Republicans will look to their base, and the less enthusiasm they'll have in 2012.
Meanwhile, every cut Republicans support that most Americans don't like, Democrats can pounce on with a populist message saying Republicans are trying to cut jobs and kill the economy. America is just dumb enough to fall for two competing narratives like that.
Personally, I hate politics like this. With Pelosi in line to be re-elected as minority leader, God help us, I almost don't care who is in charge. She's a terrible, terrible party leader. With her in charge, I'm highly hesitant to support the Democrats, but at the end of the day, Democrats believe what they believe, and Republicans believe what they believe, and I can't support the Republican message, so, I'm stuck giving tacit approval to the Democrats. So while I hate these kinds of politics, I think Democrats could seriously do some damage with it.
The key, as always, is perception. Democrats need to portray Republicans as being in charge. "They just won a landslide victory!" "They have a huge majority in the House and a strangle-hold on the Senate!" "Speaker Boehner is on the warpath!" Whoever wins the perception war in painting the other side as being in charge will be able to reap big rewards in 2012 when that side inevitably fails to do anything productive.
Maybe if we keep this trainwreck going long enough, a real third party will emerge.
They should hire you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I could have fixed it more easily if it allowed me to say cut the total US military spending down to 1% of gdp.
At that point, you have out-of-work military nutcases launching rebellions.
Not if its done gradually, say over ten years with programs to find new employment for soldiers, switch to a reserve system and reenact conscription so you make sure you have access to peacetime qualified personel.
Really its the most viable option right now.
You'd like that wouldn't you? Just as China gears up its military we downshift thus expediting your little communist take over of world affairs! Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually something along 1-2% of gdp is 140 to 280 billion dollars which is still nominally twice to 8 times that of China's official budget.
factoring in the fact that you still have the entiriety of NATO to fall back on, a trillion dollars of stored armaments, vehicals and ships your national security wouldn't be hampered in the least and China's build up is entirely a result of their fear of the US being able to unilaterally and virtually unopposed decimate the PLA with minimal losses.
Really balance of power politics is clear here, once China reaches technological and militarilal parity thats where they'll stay, their entire geopolitical strategy is geared towards this.
There is nothing in the United Nations charter that puts the USA as the sole greatest securor of world peace or military might, the UNSC members are supposed to be politically equal as such there's nothing odd about one of the weaker members (initially China) building up its armed forces to better serve its role and obligations as a full UNSC member to be that of being equal and on par with the other members.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:once China reaches technological and militarilal parity thats where they'll stay, their entire geopolitical strategy is geared towards this
What proof do you have of China's intention to settle for parity?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Eight times because our GDP is far larger than China's. As a percentage of GDP, China is closing in very closely to our margins.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's still much much less than it could be it's still a low priority for government expenditures, its increases are basically just a blatant attempt of pandering to the military to insure their support for the non Long March leaders.
quote: What proof do you have of China's intention to settle for parity?
Common sense, a nation seeking total military security wouldn't be making the efforts China is at securing peaceful resolutions of its outstanding border issues, its deals and treaties with Russia, India, Vietnam and Korea all paint a picture of China distancing itself away from its border skirmish prone past enhancing its real security.
Considering also that the PLA has gone through significant force reductions over the years and focusing instead on enhancing its modern aramement, its ability to capably fight a high tech war under local conditions, securing and maintaining only a 'modest' nuclear arsenal all paint a clear picture that China has very specific long term goals in mind and isn't seeking a Hegemony securing kind of military.
Contrast current Chinese politics with the former Soviet Union and a clear contrast emerges, it's self evident nowadays to see that the Soviet Union's strategy was a nearly paranoid obsession with national security through physical means, ie military insurance that they could overwhelm all possible attackers resulting in the increased tensions and neighbouring nations increasing their own militaries to counter act the clear numerical superiority of the Soviet Army.
This resulted in a visious repeating cycle of the USSR seeing its capabilities inadequate constantly increasing its military expenditures to account for foreign threat resulting in said thread growing in result of the increased Soviet threat and so on.
We don't see this nowadays, we see just about every UNSC nation reducing its armed forces and the asians neighbouring China feeling more secure than ever regarding hypothetical external threats from China, considering China's successes in the SCO and ASEAN conferences the near unaninous solidarity of the Asian states with China against percieved revival of Japanese militerism it becomes not only clear but blatantly obvious that China's goals are in the present time not one of military totality to secure Hegemony.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:The article was written by somebody that is simply catering to the ignorant.
Ahh...if only more articles would cater to the ignorant by pointing out facts. Perhaps then people wouldn't be so ignorant.
Yet one can cherry pick little facts and make something seem greater than it actually is? Taking a fact and blowing it out of proportion and trying to drum up outrage without including ALL of the facts is catering to the ignorant. They don't know the whole story.
It is the same type of gotcha journalism we have seen before. It is poorly researched, and relies more on the gotcha than the substance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What happen ?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Yet one can cherry pick little facts and make something seem greater than it actually is? Taking a fact and blowing it out of proportion and trying to drum up outrage without including ALL of the facts is catering to the ignorant. They don't know the whole story.
It is the same type of gotcha journalism we have seen before. It is poorly researched, and relies more on the gotcha than the substance.
Gotcha journalism doesn't always indicate bad journalism. When someone gets called on misleading or incorrect "facts" then it's both "good" and "gotcha" journalism as long as it's properly framed by context (which can be fairly subjective).
In this case, I'm willing to overlook the somewhat snarky tone of the article because I believe it has the appropriate context surrounding its facts.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:The article was written by somebody that is simply catering to the ignorant.
Ahh...if only more articles would cater to the ignorant by pointing out facts. Perhaps then people wouldn't be so ignorant.
Yet one can cherry pick little facts and make something seem greater than it actually is? Taking a fact and blowing it out of proportion and trying to drum up outrage without including ALL of the facts is catering to the ignorant. They don't know the whole story.
It is the same type of gotcha journalism we have seen before. It is poorly researched, and relies more on the gotcha than the substance.
Surely, as someone so adamantly opposed to cherrypicking and ignorance, you would be able to help us out by refuting the article's inaccuracies and exaggerations in detail? Or is it just easier to make wild accusations of "gotcha journalism" without backing it up?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)