RE: GOP to the rescue.

RE: GOP to the rescue. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: a 35% cutback in troop levels and maintenance budgets that left much of the military infrastructure in decay and had to be refurbushed under GWB Republicans weren't complaining about troop levels and military infrastructure during the 90s--they were too busy screaming we should cut taxes, that "it's your money," as the best use for the not even surpluses at first, but lower deficits. We also outspend by incredible margins all other nations in this area. Wrong, they wanted tax cuts and spending cuts outside of the defense budget. Clintons average defense budget was 17% below GHWB's and in addition he shifted another 15% or so out of the standing army and into technology areas with overpriced sole source contracts. He overturned the winning low bid on LOGCAP and awarded the contract to Halliburton. Military manpower decreased from 2.1 million at the end of GHWBs administration to 1.6 million. the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. He instituted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Here you go Domi because im curious about the source as well. This is the last time I respond to a DG post by proxy. He's ignored for a reason, and the only reason I am responding is your relatively level headed posting lately. Page 8 of this paper cites the Romer multiplier for government spending. You'll note that the average is 1.4, and it peaks at 1.57. Romer/Bernstein You'll also note that I was being extremely generous on the government spending multiplier by using Romer's numbers, because most economists think they are overstated. For the tax multiplier: page 37 And to anticipate one of the semantic arguments, yes, this paper is in terms of GDP reductions from a tax increase, but the effect is the same but in reverse for tax cuts.

domiguy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 10:32:07 PM)
wilbur please address the claim you made stating Obama's previous economic advisor, Christina Romer, stated... quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Even Obama's (now former) economic advisor admits that that the multiplier on private spending is about twice the multiplier on government taxing/spending. (A multiplier of 3 vs around 1.4).

domiguy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:04:47 PM)
Again you are wrong. Where in the article does it make a comparison between the two? The article only talks of one and only one area and that is GOVERNMENT TAX CUTS.....WHERE IN THE ARTICLE DOES IT COMPARE IT TO PRIVATE SPENDING? You said that Christina Romer.....admits that that the multiplier on private spending is about twice the multiplier on government taxing/spending. Where is it mentioned anywhere in the article comparing tax cuts to private spending? It's not. You lied. By the way there is nothing on page 8 showing the statistics you quoted. Admit you were wrong or please try again. You said... quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Even Obama's (now former) economic advisor admits that that the multiplier on private spending is about twice the multiplier on government taxing/spending. (A multiplier of 3 vs around 1.4). please show where in the article there is a correlation between tax cuts and private spending. It's not there. Just like there is nothing on page 8 to support your claims. You have lied yet again.

Brain -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:23:31 PM)
He does this because of their ‘war on brains’ where up is down and down is up. Wilbur is involved in the war. War On Brains http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuRVBvo2bbY&playnext=1&videos=HDAx1HinG_8&feature=sub

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:31:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain They will cut social security, repeal health care reform, cut taxes for the rich and we will be happy as this will provide more freedom. I'm against social security cuts, the health care reform is a nightmare that needs to be repealed, there should be no tax cuts for the rich or anybody else at the moment. We are asshole deep into debt. Seriously, what I find amazing is that both parties are holding onto two halfs of the jigsaw puzzle to make things work, and they both have this complete my way or the highway 100% in the right attitude. Seriously though, if the GOP can take control of congress.. with Obama or some other Democrat as president.. we should do okay ecnomically speaking from historical basis. However, we seem to be in some new uncharted territory that is history in the making.

Whiplashsmile4 -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/10/2010 11:33:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain It’s not a bailout. Those kids need to get an education or they have no future. Tossing money at something without a plan is not good sense.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 3:12:56 AM)
Archer: "Item #1 a tax cut however before you dismiss this as a trick for the wealthy, it's proposed that the lowest tax brackets be reduced from 10% to 5% and from 15% to 10% at the very bottom of the tax scale. That rate cut would put $500-$1200 a year in the pockets of the working poor for them to spend thus stimulating the economy and boosting jobs in a market based solution. " $500 a year. Or about $42 a month. Wow. That is just so WHITE of you Republicans. You give away BILLIONS in corporate welfare to ADM and Monsanto, and then pretend $42 bucks a month is going to make some kind of difference to the millions of working poor. You can take your "market-based solution" and shove it right up your small intestine.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 6:19:49 AM)
quote: Wrong, they wanted tax cuts and spending cuts outside of the defense budget. Clintons average defense budget was 17% below GHWB's and in addition he shifted another 15% or so out of the standing army and into technology areas with overpriced sole source contracts. He overturned the winning low bid on LOGCAP and awarded the contract to Halliburton. Military manpower decreased from 2.1 million at the end of GHWBs administration to 1.6 million. the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. He instituted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually. And again, that's not the point. GWB didn't go into office screaming "Holy Fuck! We've got to rebuild our devastated military!" No. He played golf and pushed for tax cuts. After 9/11, that didn't change--they were gonna do this war thing on the cheap. They were that good, they told us. The spending came later, when they found they were arrogant fools. And money was going inappropriate areas, like we were still in the cold war 30 years later. This is not rebuilding. This is not looking ahead. It's closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Nor did Bush do shit for the troops or veterans. Fact still is, we bizarrely outspend every other nation on the military. Not to mention the Dept. of Homeland Theater.

DomYngBlk -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 6:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: Archer No revisionism in it wasn't putting laurals on Rgean or Bush really other than the collapse of the Soviet Union thing. Timming was right Clinton LUCKED into the dot com bubble. (wasn't created by Bush or Regan) Clinton LUCKED into the peace dividend, the ability to safely cut military spending in the minds of most Americans. (this was a Regan creation to a large extent but not what I was driving at.) Clinton LUCKED into alot of things that made his presidency easier and still he didn;'t do much with it. Again not terrible, just mediocre. But then again your knee jerk response it typical. And your righty swing at the "facts" is certainly predictable. Last I checked Vietnam stopped in 1975. Since then Reagan got a few hundred marines massacred in Lebanon, won the battle of grenada, Bush saved Kuwait for freedoms sake......So really the "peace dividend" started well before the 1990's. It was the Administrations of the 80's that decided to build guns rather than make butter. Borrowed quite a bit to make those guns as well. But really it is hilarious how with the facts staring a republican in the face they still cannot give Clinton the credit he deserves. It is actually pretty entertaining Read a history book for a change. The "peace dividend" was the direct result of winding down of the cold war, which was engineered by Reagan. It consisted of a dismantling of the defense industry to the point where we can't competively bid out contracts because there is only one capable provider. It consisted of a 35% cutback in troop levels and maintenance budgets that left much of the military infrastructure in decay and had to be refurbushed under GWB. Archer's history is exactly right, and as usual you dont know what the fuck youre talking about. What a moron you are. The Peace was already made. Reagan/Bush kept the war machine running so that their donors/constituency would get their due. Are you telling me the troop drawdowns kept us from being safe? Obviously, history tells you that you are completely wrong. Why do you continue to make up things to try and prove your point? Just a reminder. 9/11 happened under BUSH dumbass

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 9:52:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Archer: "Item #1 a tax cut however before you dismiss this as a trick for the wealthy, it's proposed that the lowest tax brackets be reduced from 10% to 5% and from 15% to 10% at the very bottom of the tax scale. That rate cut would put $500-$1200 a year in the pockets of the working poor for them to spend thus stimulating the economy and boosting jobs in a market based solution. " $500 a year. Or about $42 a month. Wow. That is just so WHITE of you Republicans. You give away BILLIONS in corporate welfare to ADM and Monsanto, and then pretend $42 bucks a month is going to make some kind of difference to the millions of working poor. You can take your "market-based solution" and shove it right up your small intestine. Yeah but a $1.64 rebate check, not even a real tax cut, was ballyhood by asswipe liberals as a "bailout". Fucking idiots dont have a clue.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 9:54:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Wrong, they wanted tax cuts and spending cuts outside of the defense budget. Clintons average defense budget was 17% below GHWB's and in addition he shifted another 15% or so out of the standing army and into technology areas with overpriced sole source contracts. He overturned the winning low bid on LOGCAP and awarded the contract to Halliburton. Military manpower decreased from 2.1 million at the end of GHWBs administration to 1.6 million. the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. He instituted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually. And again, that's not the point. GWB didn't go into office screaming "Holy Fuck! We've got to rebuild our devastated military!" No. He played golf and pushed for tax cuts. After 9/11, that didn't change--they were gonna do this war thing on the cheap. They were that good, they told us. The spending came later, when they found they were arrogant fools. And money was going inappropriate areas, like we were still in the cold war 30 years later. This is not rebuilding. This is not looking ahead. It's closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Nor did Bush do shit for the troops or veterans. Fact still is, we bizarrely outspend every other nation on the military. Not to mention the Dept. of Homeland Theater. no, thats exactly the point. Tax cuts and non-defense spending cuts are good for the economy. We outspend every other nation for a reason. You may not agree with that reason, but when the money is spent on rebuilding instead of maintaining its pissing money away.

mnottertail -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 10:20:49 AM)
Now theres a distinction without a difference, by gum.

Moonhead -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 12:01:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Tax cuts and non-defense spending cuts are good for the economy. It'd be nice if one of you lads could find anything to substantiate this rather than just chanting it the way buddhists chant "ome mani padme hum", wouldn't it?

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 12:43:31 PM)
quote: no, thats exactly the point. Tax cuts and non-defense spending cuts are good for the economy. We outspend every other nation for a reason. You may not agree with that reason, but when the money is spent on rebuilding instead of maintaining its pissing money away. And you've yet again dodged the point. Bush did not set out to rebuild the military. Even after 9/11, it was "we can do this on the cheap." Further, we spend money on stuff we not only don't need, but that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Why? Guess.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 12:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: no, thats exactly the point. Tax cuts and non-defense spending cuts are good for the economy. We outspend every other nation for a reason. You may not agree with that reason, but when the money is spent on rebuilding instead of maintaining its pissing money away. And you've yet again dodged the point. Bush did not set out to rebuild the military. Even after 9/11, it was "we can do this on the cheap." Further, we spend money on stuff we not only don't need, but that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Why? Guess. I havent dodged anything. I disagree with your characterization of Bush's objectives.

Moonhead -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 12:51:51 PM)
So you feel that the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is being staged in an efficient and effective manner, then? That the military has prospered since 2000, and only took a turn for the worse in 2009?

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 1:11:20 PM)
Sorry, but this is hardly a rebuilding: [image]http://rodhafemeister.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/service-end-strength-chart.jpg[/image] Now, that he spent a shitload of money on military operations, yeah: [image]http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/v/B/bush_defense_cold_war.png[/image] So we have the worst of both worlds. Some "plan."

willbeurdaddy -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 3:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Sorry, but this is hardly a rebuilding: I ws talking about rebuilding of infrastructure, whch is a good chunk of the costs that were needed for Iraq and Afganistan.

Musicmystery -> RE: GOP to the rescue. (8/11/2010 7:09:48 PM)
What infrastructure rebuilding? New building in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. Stretched troop levels, yes. Shortage on military infrastructure, bullshit.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875