Having The Same Argument, Again.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Also, ftr, I do not care whether she is straight, lesbian, bi, bi curious, asexual, transied or otherwise; although I will take a pass on sex with her, similar to the pass I would take on sex with any of the rest of the justices, with the possible exception of Sotomayor, in the wrong circumstances*, npi, iykwim.

*Patron at 4 AM at a disco in Nice on NYE is not necessarily mi amigo. npi. nttawwt.

You are channelling Dale Carpenter on Volokh:

I don’t care whether they’re straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, two-spirit, men-who-have-sex-with-men, womyn-loving-womyn, autosexual, or beyond categorization. I know it matters to some gay-rights activists who think every gay nominee is practically gay-bashing unless she starts her testimony with, “I am a gay American judicial nominee...” I know it matters to some anti-gay-rights activists who think every Kinsey 1 or above signs a secret pledge to promote the Protocols of the Elders of San Francisco. But I really, actually don’t care.

In fact, if I think of it at all, I prefer to think of these folks as asexual. It helps me get on with the day.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

A long time client has posted an invitation to a tea party rally on em's facebook. Surprised me. Any advice on what to say to the newly revealed as insane?

"I'll invite my daughter and should we bring doilies?"

TM

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

You are channelling Dale Carpenter on Volokh:

Righteous! I need to apply his method. taking the asexual view of the masses will likely prevent from me from sticky situations.......otoh, I never would have met hank's wife......

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. And I think if Liberals wanted to give their moniker a level of respect, smart ones would start focusing on cutting those things. They could blunt a lot of the GOP's criticisms they only know to tax and spend.

Here are the numbers for net budget surplus (or deficit) during Clinton's term:

-255,087
-203,250
-163,972
-107,473
-21,958
69,213
125,563
236,445

Do you see a trend?

Here are the numbers for Bush's term:

127,424
-157,797
-375,295
-520,741
-363,570
-267,632
-241,272
-238,969


Do you see any material difference between this set of numbers and the one above?


Here are total outlays under Clinton, representing about a 25% increase over 8 years (the CPI-U increased about 20% in the period):

1,409,489
1,461,877
1,515,802
1,560,535
1,601,250
1,652,585
1,701,891
1,788,773

Here are Bush's, representing over a 50% increase over 8 years (during which the CPI-U also increased about 20%):

1,863,770
2,010,970
2,157,637
2,318,834
2,399,843
2,473,298
2,592,067
2,724,284



Republican's don't attack Democrats for spending because it's true, they do it because the attack works. So how long does the above need to be true, do you think, before those criticisms are blunted?

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Republican's don't attack Democrats for spending because it's true, they do it because the attack works. So how long does the above need to be true, do you think, before those criticisms are blunted?

Bush lied, black ink died?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree. And I think if Liberals wanted to give their moniker a level of respect, smart ones would start focusing on cutting those things. They could blunt a lot of the GOP's criticisms they only know to tax and spend.

But you'll rarely hear that from organized liberal groups. Other than defense spending, it's anathema to use the words "contract" or "cut" anywhere near govt.

We have had this discussion many times before. But the challenge to "cutting the fat" is that one persons fat is another persons sacred cow. And that fact is the very underpinning of democractic compromise.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here are the numbers for net budget surplus (or deficit) during Clinton's term:

-255,087
-203,250
-163,972
-107,473
-21,958
69,213
125,563
236,445

Do you see a trend?

Here are the numbers for Bush's term:

127,424
-157,797
-375,295
-520,741
-363,570
-267,632
-241,272
-238,969


Do you see any material difference between this set of numbers and the one above?


Here are total outlays under Clinton, representing about a 25% increase over 8 years (the CPI-U increased about 20% in the period):

1,409,489
1,461,877
1,515,802
1,560,535
1,601,250
1,652,585
1,701,891
1,788,773

Here are Bush's, representing over a 50% increase over 8 years (during which the CPI-U also increased about 20%):

1,863,770
2,010,970
2,157,637
2,318,834
2,399,843
2,473,298
2,592,067
2,724,284



Republican's don't attack Democrats for spending because it's true, they do it because the attack works. So how long does the above need to be true, do you think, before those criticisms are blunted?

Funny how you don't mention that the GOP controlled congress for the last 6 of Clinton's 8 years, and the DEMs controlled congress for the last 2 years of Bush's. There's also that little matter of the boom during Clinton's term.

Bottom line: both parties have been grossly irresponsible over the last 25 years, and the rubber is about to hit the road. I fear Greek style chaos here sometime during the this decade. Hell, we get pseudo riots in CA when the cost of public education rises, what do you think will happen when benefits are cut?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Funny how you don't mention that the GOP controlled congress for the last 6 of Clinton's 8 years, and the DEMs controlled congress for the last 2 years of Bush's. There's also that little matter of the boom during Clinton's term.

Bottom line: both parties have been grossly irresponsible over the last 25 years, and the rubber is about to hit the road. I fear Greek style chaos here sometime during the this decade. Hell, we get pseudo riots in CA when the cost of public education rises, what do you think will happen when benefits are cut?

If you think the issue during the bush years was the democratic congress you ate on crack.

Both parties bear some responsibility, if nothing els for not stopping the other guys, but for the at the the past 22 year the budget busting falls many on the Rs who have missed no oppotunity to increase spending while decreasing revenue.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you think the issue during the bush years was the democratic congress you ate on crack.

Both parties bear some responsibility, if nothing els for not stopping the other guys, but for the at the the past 22 year the budget busting falls many on the Rs who have missed no oppotunity to increase spending while decreasing revenue.

i was watching West Wing while at therapy this morning- it occurs to me the reason the tea party guys are more "motivated" that the granola crunchers were during bush is that there is no TV show showing a R president fighting uniformly venal libs.

I really think it's time, and my Ex-Aunt is about at the age where she would be a good R first lady!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there is no TV show showing a R president fighting uniformly venal libs.

Dude, Jack Bauer has been challenging people who hate America for 8 seasons now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here are the numbers for net budget surplus (or deficit) during Clinton's term:

-255,087
-203,250
-163,972
-107,473
-21,958
69,213
125,563
236,445

Do you see a trend?

Here are the numbers for Bush's term:

127,424
-157,797
-375,295
-520,741
-363,570
-267,632
-241,272
-238,969


Do you see any material difference between this set of numbers and the one above?


Here are total outlays under Clinton, representing about a 25% increase over 8 years (the CPI-U increased about 20% in the period):

1,409,489
1,461,877
1,515,802
1,560,535
1,601,250
1,652,585
1,701,891
1,788,773

Here are Bush's, representing over a 50% increase over 8 years (during which the CPI-U also increased about 20%):

1,863,770
2,010,970
2,157,637
2,318,834
2,399,843
2,473,298
2,592,067
2,724,284



Republican's don't attack Democrats for spending because it's true, they do it because the attack works. So how long does the above need to be true, do you think, before those criticisms are blunted?

You missed the posts where I said Bush was a liberal. There is no adjective to describe pre-emptive war and profligate spending like Medicare Part D but "liberal." These were intrusive uses of govt and taxpayer funds no different than the health care expansion - an administration using taxpayer dollars at its whim.

And if you think I have something against Clinton, you couldn't be more wrong. Whether it was a result of his own emerging from liberal naivete, or because Newt kept him in check, his record is that of an excellent moderate Republican. At the front end were minor tax increases, but when the economy started to take off, he backed off and let it soar. And he sold the Left wing of his party down the river - actually damaged them more than any other president I can think of - for which all rational voters should be thankful.

Sadly, Bush made a mess of it all from there. And Obama, though I give him a bit of a pass because he was handed a huge bag of shit - so far is doing a fine job of following in Bush's footsteps. I know she'd have pushed for a horrific health care plan far more left wing than Obama, but still, I wonder, if for no other reason than her presence would have had a calming effect and reminded people of a period in which this country was doing well, we might have been better off with Hillary. She could have rolled in and said, "Alright, you've had an amateur at the wheel for eight years. Now it's time for a pro to take over." Instead, we have another amateur at the wheel. Smart, but there is no doubt this guy is learning on the fly. And the economy is reflecting unease over where he might go next. Can you blame an employer for not hiring in this climate? It's tough enough with the lack of credit. Now you have to wonder WTF to do with some crazy health care regs (and God only knows what might come next)?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

We have had this discussion many times before. But the challenge to "cutting the fat" is that one persons fat is another persons sacred cow. And that fact is the very underpinning of democractic compromise.

Well, people are going to have to start picking what stays and what goes. Because there isn't enough tax revenue even with increases down to $175k earners to cover our entitlements and other expenditures.*

Someone's going to decide what gets cut, because someone has to. Raising taxes isn't going fix this. So when you read me as someone "advocating" cuts, think again... I'm not telling you what I think should be done. I'm telling you what is going to happen.

Well, that or we'll spend so much we'll effectively be Greece with a printing press.

(*Laffer's right, BTW... I can't tell you the number of people earning around $250K who are choosing lifestyle over money. You can't do it as a W2 worker, but docs, dentists, etc... I know who are single or starting out and around that threshold are planning to keep taxable family income no higher than $250k, which they can do [The $350k guy won't do it, but if you're making $270k in taxable income, why not take an extra vacation and pull back on hours instead of working to fund Uncle Sam? You might say those are small dollars, but they add up in volume.] Why bust your ass for money taxed at 40%? The better choice is to cut back and spend time with the kids. Some second earners in households have quit entirely [look up "Obama's War on Women" online... interesting read] and as to "wealthy" folks? You aren't getting the revenue from them. They're already sheltered. Taxing "Carried interest" as regular income, you say? I agree. It should be so taxed. And you know what that revenue will cover? Perhaps a week of entitlement spending. I know the argument... "No one does anything radical to save 3%!" I think they do. I think it's a 'straw the breaks the camel's back' thing.)

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you think the issue during the bush years was the democratic congress you ate on crack.

Both parties bear some responsibility, if nothing els for not stopping the other guys, but for the at the the past 22 year the budget busting falls many on the Rs who have missed no oppotunity to increase spending while decreasing revenue.

Not what I was suggesting. I never liked Bush's domestic policy and nearly moved to Canada when Part D passed. The point is that both parties are fucking idiotic.

The good news is that both are going to pay at the polls this year in historic proportions.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

[Clinton's] record is that of an excellent moderate Republican.

Who is this mythical "excellent moderate Republican" you keep comparing Clinton too?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The good news is that both are going to pay at the polls this year in historic proportions.

How's that going to work? Because I'm pretty sure that in 2011 the Senate and House will still have ~530 Democrats and Republicans.