Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 226

Spanky · 10-20-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
How can you expect us to have one, when the Administration doesn't?

Fair is fair.

S_A_M

Stay until the Iraq government can handle the insurgents themselves.

Cletus Miller · 10-20-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Stay until the Iraq government can handle the insurgents themselves.

That's not a plan, that's a goal. What is the administration's plan to reach that goal? And, equally importantly, what is the Republican party's plan to reach that goal when it has not been achieved prior to January 2009?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-20-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not that one. But I've seen this graph, which shows that debt as a percentage of GDP is as high as it was during a post-war payoff.

For your deficit figures to be meaningful, they would have to show that we are paying down the debt as well. We're not. We're increasing it.

Finally, you're also measuring (or Will is) the wrong deficit. The $250B amount doesn't include the social security obligations being incurred. The actual difference between non-SS revenue and expenditures is growing and growing fast.

Do you not see spending as a problem? I can see the argument that historically the numbers are not large. But do you think that historical measures are a good benchmark, and that we shoudl as a result accept bridges to nowhere and runaway entitlement spending?

There's a funny political dynamic that interacts with the policy one here. I call it the "Nixon in China" phenomenon.

Democrats have learned to manage the economy, keeping both taxes and expenditures in check. That is because it affects our swing voters and thus our ability to win elections. Dukakis couldn't be trusted to manage the economy: he loses. Clinton could be trusted to manage the economy: he wins.

Republicans get a bye from people voting on the economy - because those voters hear the Republican's wail on about taxes and spending. But, because it's a bye, the Republicans can spend money the Dems would never spend.

Of course, they spend it on pork instead of programs.

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Dukakis couldn't be trusted to manage the economy: he loses. Clinton could be trusted to manage the economy: he wins.

wow. more like swing voters don't trust Bush so Ross Perot takes votes from him, then Clinton sneaks in. but have your memories.

What did Jimmy Smits credit for his big Presidential win?

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2006, 07:48 PM

This is one hell of an ad.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
That's not a plan, that's a goal.

The plan is to repeat that phrase until the elections are over.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Stay until the Iraq government can handle the insurgents themselves.

OK, fair enough. . . .

Might work. So what's the plan to get us to that point? There are one hell of a lot of intermediate steps fraught with danger, and I have no confidence in this administration's ability to get them right.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-20-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wow. more like swing voters don't trust Bush so Ross Perot takes votes from him, then Clinton sneaks in. but have your memories.

What did Jimmy Smits credit for his big Presidential win?

What about 1996, Hank?

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is one hell of an ad.

Michael J. Fox has a greater chance of being cured by Jesus with a miracle than any development that stem cell research could provide. Sorry- fact.

He should support the candidate most closely aligned with the born agains.

Hank Chinaski · 10-20-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
What about 1996, Hank?

when was Bartlett's first election? I thought 2000. Or do you mean how did Clinton win in 96? Tech bubble AND we didn't realize his ass had allowed some 10000 terrorist to be trained in Afghanistan. But if GGG meant "trusted" with the economy limited to '96 I would have to say 2. shit

367-28

you got me SAM

Not Bob · 10-20-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when was Bartlett's first election? I thought 2000. Or do you mean how did Clinton win in 96? Tech bubble AND we didn't realize his ass had allowed some 10000 terrorist to be trained in Afghanistan. But if GGG meant "trusted" with the economy limited to '96 I would have to say 2. shit

367-28

you got me SAM

"Tech bubble" in November 1996 when the Dow was at 6100? I think not. Those capitalists who were in the market might think that the bubble was more of a 1998 forward kind of thing.

Spanky · 10-20-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
That's not a plan, that's a goal. What is the administration's plan to reach that goal? And, equally importantly, what is the Republican party's plan to reach that goal when it has not been achieved prior to January 2009?

What is the "goal" of the Democrats?

sgtclub · 10-20-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Democrats have learned to manage the economy, keeping both taxes and expenditures in check. That is because it affects our swing voters and thus our ability to win elections. Dukakis couldn't be trusted to manage the economy: he loses. Clinton could be trusted to manage the economy: he wins.

Wrong. Clinton learned to manage the debt, mostly because he bought into Rubin's theories, plus, there was no way in hell the Rs were going to let him free spend.

We have yet to see if the DEMs have learned any lessons. Maybe we will soon, but I doubt they have. I don't really envision speaker Pelosi forcing a cut spending agenda, and Bush is not going to raise taxes.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-20-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wrong. Clinton learned to manage the debt, mostly because he bought into Rubin's theories, plus, there was no way in hell the Rs were going to let him free spend.

We have yet to see if the DEMs have learned any lessons. Maybe we will soon, but I doubt they have. I don't really envision speaker Pelosi forcing a cut spending agenda, and Bush is not going to raise taxes.

Two points:

First, find a party with a better record for managing the economy. It's all we've got.

Second, this was exactly my point. One of the reasons for the Dem's strong record is that the Rs will make an election issue - effectively - out of any wild spending. The Rs spend wildly, however, and no one takes our criticisms of it as seriously - witness this exchange. Years of anti-spending chants are what give the Rs the leeway to spend like drunken sailors.

sgtclub · 10-20-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
OK, fair enough. . . .

Might work. So what's the plan to get us to that point? There are one hell of a lot of intermediate steps fraught with danger, and I have no confidence in this administration's ability to get them right.

S_A_M

This is the kind of thinking I don't get. Y'all act as though the military has no part in this, while at the same time, shouting from the mountain tops that you support the military.

The administration can effect broad level policies in Iraq. Stay or leave type of issues. But if we stay, and we are going to stay, regardless of who is elected, it is really a military operation and I don't see the civilians having much of an effect.

The bottom line is that, in the president's words, this is hard work, it is not going to be over in a day, and in the grand scheme of things, we have really suffered significant losses (and certainly not the 10,000 men that the left was predicted that it would take to just topple Saddam). I would like to see faster progress, but that is not going to happen.

This is going to take years to sort out. Yes, this is not what we were told going in, but I frankly didn't expect a quick solution.