DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 02, 2011, 06:07:09 PM
-
Or literally, deal with the complaints from the left that the GOP won't step up and say what they'll "cut" in order to bring the deficit down. Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP, but I wonder if anyone is paying attention:
-------------------------------------------------
I Can Balance the Budget
The Congressional Budget Office says the current year's budget deficit will be a record $1.5 trillion. It also says that over the next decade we're on track for annual deficits of "only" $768 billion. I suspect the CBO has hired Rosy Scenario to do the bookkeeping, but let's take that number at face value.
I'm now going to balance the budget, with the help of some experts.
I'll begin with things I'm most eager to cut.
Let's privatize air traffic control. Canada did it, and it works better.
Then privatize Amtrak. Get rid of all subsidies for rail. That'll save $12 billion.
End subsidies for public broadcasting, like NPR.
Cancel the Small Business Administration.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon rules under which the government pays union-set wages to workers on federal construction projects.
Cut foreign aid by half (although we should probably get rid of all of it). So far, that's $20 billion.
Oops. That doesn't dent the deficit. We have to do much more.
So eliminate the U.S. Education Department. We'd save $94 billion. Federal involvement doesn't improve education. It gets in the way.
Agriculture subsidies cost us $30 billion a year. Let's get rid of them. They distort the economy. We should also eliminate Housing and Urban Development. That's $53 billion more.
Who needs the Energy Department and its $20 billion sinkhole? The free market should determine energy investments.
And let's end the war on drugs. In effect, it's a $47 billion subsidy for thugs in the black market.
I've already cut more than six times more than President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address. His freeze of nondefense discretionary spending would save only $40 billion.
But my cuts still total only $246 billion. If we're going to get rid of the rest of the CBO's projected deficit, we must attack the "untouchable" parts of the budget, starting with Social Security. Raising the retirement age and indexing benefits to inflation would save $93 billion. I'd save more by privatizing Social Security, but our progressive friends won't like that, so for now I'll ignore privatization.
The biggest budget busters are Medicare and Medicaid, and get this: the 400 subsidy programs run by HHS. Assuming I take just two-thirds of the Cato Institute's suggested cuts, that saves $281 billion.
How about the Defense Department's $721 billion? Much of that money could be saved if the administration just shrank the military's mission to its most important role: protecting us and our borders from those who wish us harm. Today, we have more than 50,000 soldiers in Germany, 30,000 in Japan and 9,000 in Britain. Those countries should pay for their own defense. Cato's military cuts add up to $150 billion.
I've now cut enough to put us $2 billion in surplus!
Can we go further?
"Repeal Obamacare," syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock said.
Reason magazine editor Matt Welch wants to cut the Department of Homeland Security, "something that we did without 10 years ago."
But don't we need Homeland Security to keep us safe?
"We already have law enforcement in this country that pays attention to these things. This is a heavily bureaucratized organization.
"Cut the Commerce Department," Mary O'Grady of The Wall Street Journal said. "If you take out the census work that it does, you would save $8 billion. And the rest of what it does is really just collect money for the president from business."
As the bureaucrats complain about proposals to make tiny cuts, it's good to remember that disciplined government could make cuts that get us to a surplus in one year. But even a timid Congress could make swift progress if it wanted to. If it just froze spending at today's levels, it would almost balance the budget by 2017. If spending were limited to 1 percent growth each year, the budget would balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington would limit spending growth to about 2 percent a year, the red ink would almost disappear in 10 years.
As you see, the budget can be cut. Only politics stand in the way. (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2011/02/02/i_can_balance_the_budget)
-
Stossel is a libertarian
-
and......................?
-
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP, but I wonder if anyone is paying attention:
he isn't
-
Umm....ok.......and that changes anything posted, how again??
-
it doesn't.
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP
But as he is a libertarian, my guess is his priorities might be different than a republican, so what he posted does not reflect on GOP wishes nor does it address the complaints from the left.
Now you could go through Stossels recommendations and agree or disagree with them, but that doesn't address the complaints either as you claim to be an independent.
So I'm kind of lost as to the point and validity of your post.
-
He can be a martian, the issue is what he's advocating. And what he's advocating is a step in the right direction towards fiscal responsibility and appropriate constitutional Federal Government intervention, IF anyone, particularly the so-called party of limited Government, is listening
Hope that helped clear things up
-
He can be a martian, the issue is what he's advocating. And what he's advocating is a step in the right direction towards fiscal responsibility and appropriate constitutional Federal Government intervention, IF anyone, particularly the so-called party of limited Government, is listening
Hope that helped clear things up
Ah so what was the point of your lead paragraph?
Ok, let's talk brass tax
Or literally, deal with the complaints from the left that the GOP won't step up and say what they'll "cut" in order to bring the deficit down. Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP, but I wonder if anyone is paying attention:
-
Stossel is a libertarian
There are lots of Libertarian leaning people that vote Republican. (like me)
Do I agree 100% with every single Libertarian platform statement?
Uh no...but I don't agree with 100% of any political party or movement.
Stossel is a breath of fresh air and common sense.
Great article SIRS.....thanks.
-
Stossel is a libertarian
There are lots of Libertarian leaning people that vote Republican. (like me)
Do I agree 100% with every single Libertarian platform statement?
Uh no...but I don't agree with 100% of any political party or movement.
Stossel is a breath of fresh air and common sense.
Great article SIRS.....thanks.
Which again doesn't address Sirs lead paragraph.
Let me summarize.
Sirs is upset because the left claims the GOP has no concrete plans on how they would cut the deficit.
He then counters by posting a column by a known libertarian. So i'm not sure how that addresses the lefts complaints.
and that was what i posted.
I did not claim that those with libertarian leanings can not vote for Republicans, just as Republicans can vote for a Dem candidate if they fit their needs better. I voted for Zell Miller. Plane voted for Jim Marshall. I just don't see how a Libertarian becomes a GOP spokesman.
Simple as that.
-
BT you assume conservatives are like Liberals
We really don't care who or what entity speaks for "whats right"
We will throw our own to the wolves in a second if they deserve it
That Republican Fag in the airport restroom...F-him....resign doochebag!
Many of us "in the GOP" really have ZERO loyalty to the party...to any party.
We would switch in a NY Minute if we saw a chance to get real conservatives elected.
So yeah....i'm in the GOP....but many of us like and want stuff like Stossel advocates.
SIRS even qualified by saying "Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP"
Obviously SIRS is saying what I am...this guy may not be a GOP spokesman but
we agree with him....and hope that "someone is listening" from the GOP & will start
pushing this kind of agenda because many like me that are quasi GOP agree with
Stossel and want this type of agenda pursued. So I say the same thing...
is anyone listening from the GOP to these great points conservatives want?
-
BT you assume conservatives are like Liberals
We really don't care who or what entity speaks for "whats right"
We will throw our own to the wolves in a second if they deserve it
That Republican Fag in the airport restroom...F-him....resign doochebag!
Many of us "in the GOP" really have ZERO loyalty to the party...to any party.
We would switch in a NY Minute if we saw a chance to get real conservatives elected.
So yeah....i'm in the GOP....but many of us like and want stuff like Stossel advocates.
SIRS even qualified by saying "Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP"
Obviously SIRS is saying what I am...this guy may not be a GOP spokesman but
we agree with him....and hope that "someone is listening" from the GOP & will start
pushing this kind of agenda because many like me that are quasi GOP agree with
Stossel and want this type of agenda pursued. So I say the same thing...
is anyone listening from the GOP to these great points conservatives want?
So the whole thing about the left's complaints about the GOP was just ..... a strawman?
Why not just ask if what Stossel proposes is a good starting point?
-
He can be a martian, the issue is what he's advocating. And what he's advocating is a step in the right direction towards fiscal responsibility and appropriate constitutional Federal Government intervention, IF anyone, particularly the so-called party of limited Government, is listening
Hope that helped clear things up
Ah so what was the point of your lead paragraph?
Ok, let's talk brass tax
Or literally, deal with the complaints from the left that the GOP won't step up and say what they'll "cut" in order to bring the deficit down.
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP,
but I wonder if anyone is paying attention:
Because, as usual, you're trying to apply something, I never said or even implied, like thinking that I think Stossel is a Republican, or that he's some GOP operative/pundit. You seem to be so bent on trying to find something I said as wrong, your consistent coloring of what I actually said, keeps leading you to some pretty huge erroneous conclusions/assumptions
My comments are pretty specific, not to mention transparent. If you were to bother to drop the anti-sirs bias, you would have noted that that lead paragraph a) the ongoing accusations from the left that Republicans say they want to see cuts, but won't provide any specific examples, b) had Stossel as an unknown to me, party wise, and completely irrelevant to c) the hope that someone(s) in the GOP level of leadership is paying attention to what he's advocating
-
So was your main thrust
a,b or c?
-
All were pertinent, though b) was least of which and c) was most
-
So how was a) addressed in your paragraph or by your post?
-
It didn't require addressing. It was merely an accurate point being made.
-
I guess i'll never understand how certain people think.
-
As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful
-
As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful
What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?
-
Is this an example of jumping to predisposed conclusions?
Because, as usual, you're trying to apply something, I never said or even implied, like thinking that I think Stossel is a Republican, or that he's some GOP operative/pundit. You seem to be so bent on trying to find something I said as wrong, your consistent coloring of what I actually said, keeps leading you to some pretty huge erroneous conclusions/assumptions.
My comments are pretty specific, not to mention transparent. If you were to bother to drop the anti-sirs bias, you would have noted that that lead paragraph a) the ongoing accusations from the left that Republicans say they want to see cuts, but won't provide any specific examples, b) had Stossel as an unknown to me, party wise, and completely irrelevant to c) the hope that someone(s) in the GOP level of leadership is paying attention to what he's advocating (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/ok-let%27s-talk-brass-taxes/msg118045/#msg118045)
-
Not at all. Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings
As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful
What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?
Well THIS time it was some need to supposedly correct me for erroneously implying Stossel was some GOP pundit/spokesperson. Then going on about that, when his party affiliation was completely irrelevant to the point being made
-
Not at all. Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings
As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful
What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP
to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.
which took two links away from your original link to verify.
Well THIS time it was some need to supposedly correct me for erroneously implying Stossel was some GOP pundit/spokesperson. Then going on about that, when his party affiliation was completely irrelevant to the point being made
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP
to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.
which took two clicks away from your original link to verify.
Notice i didn't append dumbass or any other slur to the simple provision of information.
So how you took that simple reply as an attack, i don't know.
-
A list of specific cuts the RSC is proposing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-gets-specific-on-cuts_n_811557.html)
Diffrent versions of same story;
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/house_republicans_unveil_25_tr.html (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/01/house_republicans_unveil_25_tr.html)
http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2011/February/02/GH-020211-Budget.aspx (http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2011/February/02/GH-020211-Budget.aspx)
And Paul Ryan
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.html)
-
Not at all. Your consistent trend of doing precisely what you quoted is a prime example of accurate deduction, and what you've been doing with so many of my postings
As long as you don't jump to predisposed conclusions, it becomes much easier, and less stressful
What predisposed conclusions did i jump to?
Not sure this fella is a spokesperson for the GOP
to which i replied that Stossel was a libertarian.
which took two clicks away from your original link to verify.
Notice i didn't append dumbass or any other slur to the simple provision of information.
So how you took that simple reply as an attack, i don't know.
Not so much an attack, just an ongoing issue you apparently have with my posts, predisposed to finding some error in them, and then trying to pound away on that, even when it's barely a footnote in the points being made, not to mention the incorrect predisposed conclusion you apparently had that I thought Stossel was connected to the GOP
-
Not so much an attack, just an ongoing issue you apparently have with my posts, predisposed to finding some error in them, and then trying to pound away on that, even when it's barely a footnote in the points being made, not to mention the incorrect predisposed conclusion you apparently had that I thought Stossel was connected to the GOP
It was clear from the start that you did not know who Stossel was. That is why I informed you. Why would letting you know that he was a libertarian be considered an attack?
-
Why is knowing Stossel's party affiliation pertinent? It was neither asked for nor was it relevent to the point being made. If it were merely you "informing" me, then there wouldn't have been multiple posts following that point of "informing" that basically kept asking about why was he and the GOP were being discussed in the same paragraph by me, even declaring how he wasn't a spokesperson for the GOP, when I never claimed he was. You made another error in judging my post is all. No biggie, but the pattern is problematic
-
Why is knowing Stossel's party affiliation pertinent?
Because he wrote the article you posted.
It was neither asked for nor was it relevent to the point being made
Because you weren't sure if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
. He isn't.
If it were merely you "informing" me, then there wouldn't have been multiple posts following that point of "informing" that basically kept asking about why was he and the GOP were being discussed in the same paragraph by me, even declaring how he wasn't a spokesperson for the GOP, when I never claimed he was.
Because you replied to my informational post with an and......................?
I was surprised you didn't know who he was. He's been on air espousing libertarian viewpoints for 20 some years. I was surprised that you felt the need to be upset about claims from the left about a lack of a GOP plan and then counter with a plan from someone you weren't sure was a GOP spokesperson, like perhaps Paul Ryan, who seems to have a roadmap for deficit reduction which he talked about after the SOTU Address.
There is an old axiom in law and politics and that is don't ask a question to which you don't already have the answer.
You seem to have made an error in judgment thinking my reply was an attack.
-
And yet you kept bringing Stossel up, and imploring me how he wasn't a spokesperson or had the same priorities as the GOP, which again, I never claimed he had in the 1st place. Your continued references to Stossel's being a libertarian had squat to do with anything, and you validated all the above with your subsequent responses to Cu4
You were wrong for assuming that. Just move on, I forgive you
-
I didn't ask for forgiveness. You misinterpreted intent.
-
I gave it anyway. You misinterpreted cause & effect
-
How gracious of you
-
Thanks. Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian
-
Thanks. Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian
That would be great.
Be sure indicate which parts of your posts are relevant, you know, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and possible feelings of persecution.
That way when you answer complaints from the left that the GOP doesn't have concrete plans to cut the deficit with a column by a man of unknown party affiliation, that your intent was not to show that the GOP did have a plan but that they could have a plan if they read the man's column.
-
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.
He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.
-
Thanks. Perhaps now we can move on to actual relevent points, vs all this bandwith you've prioritized in making sure we all know, sirs in particular, that Stossel is a Libertarian
That would be great.
Be sure indicate which parts of your posts are relevant, you know, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding and possible feelings of persecution.
That way when you answer complaints from the left that the GOP doesn't have concrete plans to cut the deficit with a column by a man of unknown party affiliation, that your intent was not to show that the GOP did have a plan but that they could have a plan if they read the man's column.
Actually it was pretty clear what was and wasn't relevent to begin with. You merely took issue with what you believed I was implying, that Stossel was somehow a GOP spokesperson, and then had to hammer a way at that, despite how fast it was demonstrated to have never been the case (can't keep count of how many posts so far, you've devoted to this irrelevancy)
-
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.
He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.
He may very well speak for many in the GOP on subjects on which they agree,that would be an individual preference, but he isn't an official GOP spokesperson or speak for the group as a whole.
-
Dictionary.com: spokes-person
"a person who speaks for another or for a group"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+)
-
if he was a spokesperson for the GOP
He isn't.
He is to me....John Stossel speaks for many in the GOP that feel the
establishment GOP is too often caving to the elected Left and to the
vast Leftist driven media.
He may very well speak for many in the GOP on subjects on which they agree,that would be an individual preference, but he isn't an official GOP spokesperson or speak for the group as a whole.
Which again demonstrates where your train went off the tracks, as it relates to predisposing that's what I meant, with your continued questioning of my original quote. Despite any "vagueness" you are trying to claim on my part, you didn't ask for clarity, you merely went with the predisposed idea, that's what I meant, that Stossel must be some GOP spokesperson, and that his ideas was a Republican plan that needed hashing out
Again, if it were MERELY you trying to be the pleasant information poster, you would have ended your responses, following reply #3. I'm now responding to reply #36, where you're still referencing an issue that's irrelevent to the points being made by Stossel, though I will concede you're now responding to Cu4
-
I agree that your first paragraph was not relevant. In fact I don't know why you wrote it.
-
Dictionary.com: spokes-person
"a person who speaks for another or for a group"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spokesperson+)
A GOP spokesperson would speak for the GOP. Is the GOP an individual or a group?
-
I agree that your first paragraph was not relevant. In fact I don't know why you wrote it.
And yet, that's what you pounced on, and continued to do so. and I've already demonstrated the likely "why". All the while, Stossel's ideas remain relatively untouched by discussion. Priority apparently needs to be to find something that sirs says, that's wrong, and go with it, regardless of relevancy and/or error in judgement to begin with
-
Prepare for the Sob Stories (as legitimate as they may be)
--------------------------------
House Republicans move to slash domestic programs
Republicans controlling the House promised Thursday to slash domestic agencies' spending by almost 20 percent in their drive to bring it back to levels in place before President Barack Obama took office.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan announced the move as the first salvo in a battle with Obama as they seek to keep a campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic programs.
The cuts would bring huge changes to agencies used to budget boosts during Obama's first two years in office. The White House has vowed to fight Republicans, saying their plans could lead to widespread furloughs of federal employees and force vulnerable people off of subsidized housing, reduce services in national parks and slash aid to schools and local police and fire departments.
"Washington's spending spree is over," Ryan, R-Wis., said. "The spending limits will restore sanity to a broken budget process and return spending for domestic government agencies to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels."
Republicans made a campaign promise to cut $100 billion from Obama's request for domestic agencies like the Department of Education, for the budget year that began in October. But since the year is under way, they're so far falling short, just $58 billion under the plan released Thursday. They promise to try to fully impose the dramatic cuts during what is sure to be a contentious budget debate this year.
The GOP promise was to reduce spending for domestic agencies whose budgets are set by Congress each year back to levels in place under the last budget approved by former President George W. Bush.
Under the original pledge, the Pentagon could have been awarded Obama's proposed 4 percent, $23 billion increase. Instead, the military budget will grow by significantly less when the Appropriations Committee unveils its proposed budget cap later Thursday.
The $100 billion savings figure is measured against Obama's budget request, but the actual savings would be less since Obama's budget boosts were never approved and the government is operating at 2010 levels. Instead, the savings from domestic programs in making the switch from 2010 to 2008 would be about $86 billion, imposing cuts of 19 percent on average.
And the savings from domestic programs in the year ending Sept. 30 would be even less since Obama's budget boosts were never approved and the government is operating at 2010 levels. Republicans acknowledge they can achieve, at best, $32 billion in saving by the Sept. 30 end of the year once small increases for the security agencies _ the Pentagon and the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs _ are factored in.
A stopgap spending bill passed in December expires March 4. Enacting a full-year funding bill promises to be a difficult test of the new balance of power in Washington. Republicans control only the House, but Democrats acknowledge that _ with the deficit on pace to hit $1.5 trillion this year _ some spending cuts will have to be made.
"We're not burying our heads on the sand. We recognize that we have to do something," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Obama's most powerful ally on Capitol Hill.
Republicans say some agencies like the FBI, the Indian Health Service and NASA are unlikely to be cut all the way back to pre-Obama levels. But that means other agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, would have to bear even bigger cuts.
Returning to 2008 levels would produce dramatic cuts for many agencies: a 41 percent cut for EPA clean water grants; an 8 percent cut to NASA, a 16 percent cut for the FBI and a 13 percent cut in the operating budget of the national parks.
The hard-charging GOP freshman class _ especially newcomers from Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York and New Hampshire _ may have some second thoughts when confronted with big cuts looming to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, which provides home heating subsidies to the poor.
Republicans in Texas, Florida and Alabama _ where NASA facilities mean thousands of jobs _ are sure to fight against cuts to the space agency. NASA could have to abandon the International Space Station because of the cuts, the White House warns.
Lawmakers in both parties from rural districts are likely to resist what could be an almost 20 percent cut to a program that subsidizes service by smaller airlines to isolated cities and towns like Scottsbluff, Neb., and Burlington, Iowa. Smaller subsidies or tighter rules would probably mean some communities would lose service.
As local school districts cope with budget squeezes, they won't be able to count on the same amount of help from the federal government. Special education grants to states could be cut by $1.4 billion, or 11 percent, forcing hometown school boards to cut services or make up the difference with local funds.
Those evil, cold, uncaring Republicans (http://townhall.com/news/us/2011/02/03/house_republicans_move_to_slash_domestic_programs)
-
And yet, that's what you pounced on, and continued to do so.
Which is why i asked you to flag the irrelevant portions of your post so that i do not waste my time on them and you don't get the vapors if i mistakenly take them as germane to the topic.
-
The germane points were clear by reply #4, and remain so. You chose to go with the more irrelevent points, believing how I was in error with them. I would have thought though, the last thread about you erroneously concluding what I supposedly was claiming Bush was saying/implying would have had a finality point to that prediposed tact. I love the debate and discussions, even when in disagreement, but you really should find another hobby than to try and find error with something sirs posted. Especially when your conclusions of such an error are grossly in error yourself.
-
The germane points were clear by reply #4, and remain so. You chose to go with the more irrelevent points, believing how I was in error with them. I would have thought though, the last thread about you erroneously concluding what I supposedly was claiming Bush was saying/implying would have had a finality point to that prediposed tact. I love the debate and discussions, even when in disagreement, but you really should find another hobby than to try and find error with something sirs posted. Especially when your conclusions of such an error are grossly in error yourself.
What is the relevance of this post?
-
Dealing with the notion that my original post, and subsequent clarity by reply #4, demonstrated the germane points.....that removed any "burden" on your part to weed thru and waste any time on anything irrelevent
-
Hadn't you already posted that thesis?
Are you now being redundant as well as irrelevant?
-
Nope, merely answering your direct question. But by all means, continue to ignore the point of thread. It's setting such a great example
*sarcasm alert*
-
The point of the post was that some guy , maybe even a Republican, had some ideas about how to cut the deficit. And by golly that should shut up the complainers on the left.
-
Ummm, wrong again ::) How in the world did you make that leap of illogic that this was about how to shut up the left?? I actually know, but its entertaining how you keep validating my deduction on how you keep predisposing what my posts must be about
-
Ummm, wrong again ::) How in the world did you make that leap of illogic that this was about how to shut up the left?? I actually know, but its entertaining how you keep validating my deduction on how you keep predisposing what my posts must be about
That seemed to be a point (a: i believe) in the irrelevant first paragraph. Else why include it in the sentence?
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/ok-let's-talk-brass-taxes/msg118050/#msg118050). The fact you're even referencing my a), demonstrates where again how minimal that issue is/was, yet here you are, page 4, declaring it as a predominant "point of the post"
-
It didn't require addressing. It was merely an accurate point being made.
But irrelevant, if i understand you correctly.
-
Not completely, as it had relevence to current reality. But it was a minimal issue, and hardly a declaration that the "point of the post" was some sirs' position of how this should shut the left up.
I realize what a defensive posture you've put yourself in, and rather than keep the saloon patrons from becoming nauseated at this irrelevant back & forth, that you've put so much time and energy in, with continued erroneous conclusions of what sirs was trying to say, here's what sirs was trying to say
Stossel, regardless of his party affiliation, has some huge ideas about bringing back fiscal discipline and constitutional accountability of the Federal Government. Perhaps the "Party of limited Government" might want to look these over, as politically unsavory as they might be. Perhaps saloon patrons may wish to discuss/debate the merits of some of these ideas
That was clearly my point, with the initial posting. Anything else was reading into it, what they WANTED to read into it.
-
I'm sure if anyone wanted to discuss Stossels article, they would have. In fact, CU thanked you for posting it.
You must be beaming with pride.
Better the GOP lawmakers read Stossel than to be left to their own devices like our dear lawmakers in SD who believe frivolous legislation, which i believe you said was well worth the expense, is the best way to get your message across to Obama.
-
ABSOFRELLINLOUTELY worth the expense considering the far more egregious expense of Obamacare, that the proposed SD legislation is mimicking
-
Oh yea, Cu4's contributions to this thread, highly appreciated. But cudos on deflection efforts 8)
-
ABSOFRELLINLOUTELY worth the expense considering the far more egregious expense of Obamacare, that the proposed SD legislation is mimicking
Yes wasteful spending is always ok as long as it is less than more expensive spending.
-
Education is not a wasteful endeavor
-
Education is not a wasteful endeavor
That wasn't an education bill.
That was grandstanding at taxpayer expense.
-
Naaa, it's educating the populace on constitutional law and its designed limits of government extension. Not enough of that education, in this country, it would seem
-
Naaa, it's educating the populace on constitutional law and its designed limits of government extension. Not enough of that education, in this country, it would seem
And you think introducing frivolous laws is the best way to do that?
-
If you're wishing to refer to Obamacare as frivolous, so be it
-
If you're wishing to refer to Obamacare as frivolous, so be it
Don't be obtuse. We are talking about your approval of lawmakers in SD pissing away taxpayers money on symbolic grandstanding legislation.
-
Not being so at all. Omamacare is this proposed SD legislation is Obamacare. If one is frivolous so too is the other. If one is wasting taxpayers dollars, so is the other. If you wish to piss & moan about the one, so to does the other "mandate" pissing and moaning. If we're to be consistent, that is
And constitutional education is hardly symbolic grandstanding, IMHO
-
Not being so at all. Omamacare is this proposed SD legislation is Obamacare.
Is that in English?
Anyway it doesn't matter, it's your conservative credentials that are at risk by applauding govt waste, not mine.
-
Sorry, missed the "b" in my Omamacare. And my credentials are just fine, when the goal is repealing the epitome of not just Gov waste, but overeaching extraconstitutional abuse
-
Ombamacare is this proposed SD legislation is Obamacare
I was refering to the above gibberish. What does that sentence mean?
-
And my credentials are just fine
Sure they are. Everyone knows that advocating wasteful spending is the heart and soul of a fiscal conservative.
-
"wasteful spending" as defined by someone who's largely tossing their conservative credentials for a more moderate appeasing set
Let's have an actual conservative claim my credentials have been soiled with my support of constitutional education via legislation
And my statement was clear......what's largely used to criticize the SD legislation can be equally applied to Obamacare. Apparently moderates also have a different definition of gibberish as well
-
"wasteful spending" as defined by
spending taxpayer money for purposes which they were not intended. For example, crafting legislation that will go nowhere for the sole purpose of grandstanding. I'm sure the voters in each legislators district had that action in mind when they entrusted these legislators to represent them them in the SD legislature.
-
again, as defined by an apparent moderate, who apparently has no qualms with government mandating people must purchase health insurance, despite the clear constitutional limitations placed upon the Fed.....ironically the polar opposite of conservative credentials
Let's let Cu4 or Kramer or Plane tell me how my conservative credentials are no more. They'll have a tad more credibility in such a claim
-
again, as defined by an apparent moderate, who apparently has no qualms with government mandating people must purchase health insurance, despite the clear constitutional limitations placed upon the Fed.....ironically the polar opposite of conservative credentials
Let's let Cu4 or Kramer or Plane tell me how my conservative credentials are no more. They'll have a tad more credibility in such a claim
You deflect, which just goes to show how weak your position is.
I just don't see how anyone who advocates wasteful and frivolous spending can call themselves a fiscal conservative.
-
LOL...I wouldn't bring up deflection, considering how you're using this tangent to deflect from the point of this thread. Talk about weak. Talk about "don't look here, let's look over there"
Your premise of wasteful and frivolous is so flawed, its almost laughable. If you support Federally mandated UHC, you've thrown your conservative credentials, clean out the window
-
LOL...I wouldn't bring up deflection, considering how you're using this tangent to deflect from the point of this thread. Talk about weak. Talk about "don't look here, let's look over there"
Your premise of wasteful and frivolous is so flawed, its almost laughable. If you support Federally mandated UHC, you've thrown your conservative credentials, clean out the window
Yeah right, it's not me who supports the law to nowhere. That would be you. Waste of taxpayer monies is bad unless it's your guys doing it. Then its educational. ::)
And i have always proposed that UHC be funded and managed at the state level with sales taxes. Everybody pays everybody plays.
But your misrepresentation is duly noted.
-
Deflect away
-
Deflect away
No need. My record on the UHC is as clear as your support for boondoggle spending. But continue lying about it if it helps you sleep at night. I doubt your reputation will suffer any further, it being already tarnished and all anyways.
-
Your record on UHC, IIRC is that they should scrap Obamacare and "do it right".......that would be the Federal level. In fact, my guess is that if Obamacare DID cover everyone, and WAS payed for with a national sales tax, you'd be just peachy. No? If not, why not?
And nice use of hyperbole to go from proposed legislation to a boondoggle in spending. If someone were reading you for the 1st time, they'd think you were claiming my love for spending akin to Obama and the Dems.
Nice misreping there, to now compliment the deflection
-
Your record on UHC, IIRC is that they should scrap Obamacare and "do it right".......that would be the Federal level. In fact, my guess is that if Obamacare DID cover everyone, and WAS payed for with a national sales tax, you'd be just peachy. No? If not, why not?
And nice use of hyperbole to go from proposed legislation to a boondoggle in spending. If someone were reading you for the 1st time, they'd think you were claiming my love for spending akin to Obama and the Dems.
Nice misreping there, to now compliment the deflection
This forum has a search feature and my position on UHC has not changed. State level- funded with sales tax. But keep digging, it's your credibility.
-
Your hyperbole, deflection, and misrepresentation efforts, not withstanding, .....IIRC....Apparently, moderates don't do that acronym definition either. Given your track record with responding to my posts, as of late. I really wouldn't be worried about my credibility
-
Your hyperbole, deflection, and misrepresentation efforts, not withstanding, .....IIRC....Apparently, moderates don't do that acronym definition either. Given your track record with responding to my posts, as of late. I really wouldn't be worried about my credibility
Oh I'm not worried about your credibility. That is your concern, seeing as to the number of hits it has taken lately.
-
sirs is the Crown Prince of deflection. He has zero credibility, but more than that, he is a crashing bore.
-
(http://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Im-bored-mug.jpg)
http://improbable.com/2009/11/29/please-stop-im-bored-mug/ (http://improbable.com/2009/11/29/please-stop-im-bored-mug/)
We need Little miss Sweetie Poo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/sep/28/ig-nobel-stop-speakers-improbable-research (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/sep/28/ig-nobel-stop-speakers-improbable-research)
Although Sirs is a frequent offender , he is certainly not alone , nailing down that last detail with fifty redundant posts is the something like the worlds slowest Tango.
Is there no fuse to blow when niggleing approaches asymptotic with meaninglessness?
Anyone who fails to understand this statement is invited to exchange a few hundred snarky remarks with me to prove they won't ever.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAsymptote&ei=m25NTewuxJuWB-D_kPcP&usg=AFQjCNEcfkF6KjflUbGrg59mvc329Zp7MA (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAsymptote&ei=m25NTewuxJuWB-D_kPcP&usg=AFQjCNEcfkF6KjflUbGrg59mvc329Zp7MA)
-
Your hyperbole, deflection, and misrepresentation efforts, not withstanding, .....IIRC....Apparently, moderates don't do that acronym definition either. Given your track record with responding to my posts, as of late. I really wouldn't be worried about my credibility
Oh I'm not worried about your credibility. That is your concern, seeing as to the number of hits it has taken lately.
Oh, the irony 8)