Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 24, 2014 22:37:40 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 22:37:40 GMT -6
You seem to be making a ridiculously long argument out of the fact that I used the word "every" in a post. Apparently it's worth a half-dozen posts for you to come up with an invalidating counterexample. Congratulations. Of course, you could have just recognized hyperbolic speech, looked at the record on cuts in recent years, and realized that I'm not particularly far off the mark. As for real conservatives being pragmatic, we'll see. One tail-between-the-legs budget agreement doth not a trend make. I was hoping for something more gracious, but I'll accept your concession. I don't know about the "tail-between the legs" bit though. The fringe right is not so pleased with the Ryan-Murray budget deal of course, but my reading of blogs and commentary suggests that both the fringe left and center left feel that Ryan came out on top this time. J
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 24, 2014 22:57:44 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 24, 2014 22:57:44 GMT -6
I was hoping for something more gracious, but I'll accept your concession. Then perhaps you shouldn't have been so damned smug.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 25, 2014 13:03:17 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 13:03:17 GMT -6
I was hoping for something more gracious, but I'll accept your concession. Then perhaps you shouldn't have been so damned smug. Hi FB: I got under your skin... sorry about that. Here's the deal though, I'm not nit-picking your hyperbole. I disagree with your basic premise: that the record on cuts in recent years favors the defense and corporate entitlement over social programs. I believe that you are blindly embracing a myth fostered by the left, a myth fabricated and pervasively disseminated to make conservatives in general look like heartless bastards. This is a myth so well entrenched that you missed the legitimacy of my objection and concluded that I was just nit-picking your verbiage. This is an important social and political point I'm making. Not nit-picking! Some conservative are heartless bastards no doubt, but the vast majority of conservatives are realists who, although they do not want to screw the poor, feel they are forced to say "stop" when spending becomes unsupportable. Reasonably balanced policy requires both upward and downward pressure on the budgetary wants and needs of Washington. Consider this graph: † Social spending includes housing and community services, welfare and social services, recreation and culture, health, education, retirement benefits, disability benefits and unemployment benefits. ‡ National defense includes military spending and veterans' benefits. § General government and debt service includes the executive & legislative branches, tax collection, financial management, and interest payments. # Economic affairs includes transportation, general economic & labor affairs, agriculture, natural resources, energy, and space. £ Public order and safety includes police, fire, law courts, and prisons.
www.justfacts.com/socialspending.basics.asp {This citation popped up in a Google search and I used it. I can not definitively state that this source is unbiased, but I glanced at their global warming section as a control and did not see right wing spin} The spending trends graphically represented above are unmistakable and eviscerate your basic premise. With all sincerity, and without any {unreasonable} smugness, I think that your bias against conservatives, which in many cases is well justified on social status issues, has clouded your thinking on spending and general welfare issues. This is a critical point for you to explore if you want to understand rank and file republicans like me.
J
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 25, 2014 13:36:02 GMT -6
Post by stevec on Jan 25, 2014 13:36:02 GMT -6
Jim,
So it's okay for me to be a conservative? The choices have sucked over the last 14 years. I thought Christie would change the pattern, but that ship seems to have sailed under the G.W. Bridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 25, 2014 16:11:44 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 16:11:44 GMT -6
Jim, So it's okay for me to be a conservative? The choices have sucked over the last 14 years. I thought Christie would change the pattern, but that ship seems to have sailed under the G.W. Bridge. Of course it's OK to be conservative. You have a point regarding our candidates though - on both sides actually. It's hard not to be too cynical.
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 26, 2014 2:31:38 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 26, 2014 2:31:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 27, 2014 18:25:46 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 27, 2014 18:25:46 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 10:00:46 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 10:00:46 GMT -6
Your logic and commentary is far too simplistic Flitz, your point boils down to this: cuts = bad, therefore R = evil; increases = good, therefore D = beneficent. Note how you jumped right to starvation! Obviously just snarky hyperbole on your part, but still, as a physician, I'm sure you know that obesity is the pervasive health burden of the poor in the US, not starvation. My friendly observations concerning your anti R bias skip the real issue however. There are public health and policy goals behind the SNAP program. One could articulate the pros and cons of this program and try to identify the proper and best SNAP levels and recipient qualifications necessary to achieve the stated goals of the program. In addition, one could identify the SNAP levels where the benefits to the poor are outweighed by disincentives, resulting in negative consequences. One could identify SNAP levels where the distributions are not supportable in the context of the overall budget. I'm pretty sure neither of us has the time to address these tasks. But only with that policy analysis framework in place can we intelligently discuss whether a 4B cut, a 9B cut, a 40B cut, no cut at all or an increase in SNAP funding is the best policy. the best policy to achieve the overall goals of the SNAP program, in the context of the entire package of social programs and further within the entire context of the budget. Heck, the article you cite indicates that this farm bill is the result of a well debated compromise. It is expected to sail through both houses and be signed by the President. Maybe the congressional negotiators considered some of the above matters reached the best and most appropriate figure for SNAP funding after meaningful and in-depth analysis? I find your vilification of Republicans in general and particularly in this example puzzling. Jim
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 11:04:40 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 11:04:40 GMT -6
Your logic and commentary is far too simplistic Flitz, your point boils down to this: cuts = bad, therefore R = evil; increases = good, therefore D = beneficent. Note how you jumped right to starvation! Obviously just snarky hyperbole on your part, but still, as a physician, I'm sure you know that obesity is the pervasive health burden of the poor in the US, not starvation. My friendly observations concerning your anti R bias skip the real issue however. There are public health and policy goals behind the SNAP program. One could articulate the pros and cons of this program and try to identify the proper and best SNAP levels and recipient qualifications necessary to achieve the stated goals of the program. In addition, one could identify the SNAP levels where the benefits to the poor are outweighed by disincentives, resulting in negative consequences. One could identify SNAP levels where the distributions are not supportable in the context of the overall budget. I'm pretty sure neither of us has the time to address these tasks. But only with that policy analysis framework in place can we intelligently discuss whether a 4B cut, a 9B cut, a 40B cut, no cut at all or an increase in SNAP funding is the best policy. the best policy to achieve the overall goals of the SNAP program, in the context of the entire package of social programs and further within the entire context of the budget. Heck, the article you cite indicates that this farm bill is the result of a well debated compromise. It is expected to sail through both houses and be signed by the President. Maybe the congressional negotiators considered some of the above matters reached the best and most appropriate figure for SNAP funding after meaningful and in-depth analysis? I find your vilification of Republicans in general and particularly in this example puzzling. Jim A few things: First of all, the House proposal of $40B in cuts represents 50% of the budget of that program. Second, if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of the House concerning food stamps, it is obvious that the cuts are being driven not by a thoughtful analysis of needs and results, but rather on the "unfairness" that people should get something for nothing. Perhaps you don't hear this in the cigar bar where you and the rest of the thoughtful, pragmatic republicans hang out, but in the national debate, you are frankly deaf if you miss it. Third, once you factor out genetics, the principle cause of obesity is poor/inefficient nutrition, not "too much food".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 11:59:02 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 11:59:02 GMT -6
Your logic and commentary is far too simplistic Flitz, your point boils down to this: cuts = bad, therefore R = evil; increases = good, therefore D = beneficent. Note how you jumped right to starvation! Obviously just snarky hyperbole on your part, but still, as a physician, I'm sure you know that obesity is the pervasive health burden of the poor in the US, not starvation. My friendly observations concerning your anti R bias skip the real issue however. There are public health and policy goals behind the SNAP program. One could articulate the pros and cons of this program and try to identify the proper and best SNAP levels and recipient qualifications necessary to achieve the stated goals of the program. In addition, one could identify the SNAP levels where the benefits to the poor are outweighed by disincentives, resulting in negative consequences. One could identify SNAP levels where the distributions are not supportable in the context of the overall budget. I'm pretty sure neither of us has the time to address these tasks. But only with that policy analysis framework in place can we intelligently discuss whether a 4B cut, a 9B cut, a 40B cut, no cut at all or an increase in SNAP funding is the best policy. the best policy to achieve the overall goals of the SNAP program, in the context of the entire package of social programs and further within the entire context of the budget. Heck, the article you cite indicates that this farm bill is the result of a well debated compromise. It is expected to sail through both houses and be signed by the President. Maybe the congressional negotiators considered some of the above matters reached the best and most appropriate figure for SNAP funding after meaningful and in-depth analysis? I find your vilification of Republicans in general and particularly in this example puzzling. Jim A few things: First of all, the House proposal of $40B in cuts represents 50% of the budget of that program. Second, if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of the House concerning food stamps, it is obvious that the cuts are being driven not by a thoughtful analysis of needs and results, but rather on the "unfairness" that people should get something for nothing. Perhaps you don't hear this in the cigar bar where you and the rest of the thoughtful, pragmatic republicans hang out, but in the national debate, you are frankly deaf if you miss it. Third, once you factor out genetics, the principle cause of obesity is poor/inefficient nutrition, not "too much food". Flitz: I'm glad that you choose not to defend your use of the word "starvation" above. On the merits, I would submit that you are not listening to the rhetoric coming out of the house. Paul Ryan is driving the budget from the GOP side. Show me some quotes where he focuses on the alleged "unfairness" of food stamps. On the contrary, you are listening to partisan spin. Or maybe you are listening to the rhetoric of uber-right wind-bags on talk radio. Look at the article you posted for example. The thoughtful Democrat and Republican legislators quoted in the article talked about how this Farm Bill is a well reasoned and effective piece of bipartisan legislation. The headline however, focuses on the cuts to SNAP. Hmm. No bias there. Another point. I have never, and will never, see the inside of a cigar bar. You seem to live in caricature land, at least when talking politics. Also, I've yet to hear you comment on the spending graph I posted earlier which completely and undeniably eviscerates your original point. Jim
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 12:11:00 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 12:11:00 GMT -6
Another point. I have never, and will never, see the inside of a cigar bar. You seem to live in caricature land, at least when talking politics. I'm just wondering where the rational, pragmatic Republicans are hanging out. They certainly aren't in the House. Scratch that, I'll give you "pragmatic" based on the fact that they have done a major backpedal on financing the budget. It's an election year, and they know how vulnerable they are for the bullshit they committed in 2013. Also, I've yet to hear you comment on the spending graph I posted earlier which completely and undeniably eviscerates your original point. The government has, in fact, taken on issues which it did not in 1959. Will you continue to conclude that social spending is unsustainable until we are back to spending 60% on defense? Good luck with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 12:30:57 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 12:30:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 12:39:38 GMT -6
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 12:39:38 GMT -6
I would agree with you, except that your commentary on the graph included the conclusion that spending was "unsupportable", apparently based on that graph (and if not on that, you didn't otherwise source it). I am forced to conclude that your conclusion owes to the only significant visible shift on the chart, i.e. the relative inversion of defense versus social spending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 14:10:00 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 14:10:00 GMT -6
I would agree with you, except that your commentary on the graph included the conclusion that spending was "unsupportable", apparently based on that graph (and if not on that, you didn't otherwise source it). I am forced to conclude that your conclusion owes to the only significant visible shift on the chart, i.e. the relative inversion of defense versus social spending. Hi Flitz: I see. Acknowledging a need for downward pressure on the budget becomes "Will you continue to conclude that social spending is unsustainable until we are back to spending 60% on defense." You are clearly doubling down on your straw man. Have at it. Next I suppose that you will deflect by accusing me of missing your "obvious hyperbole" if I refuse to have you put words in my mouth. For the record, I think that the inversion of defense and social spending is appropriate given that we have not been faced with an existential war recently. This has nothing to do with me favoring spending restraint in general of course. I merely want to clear the record on your straw man du jour. Take a look at my posts from the beginning of the thread please, and then, if you want to debate something I've actually said, let me know. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Welfare
Jan 28, 2014 14:13:49 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 14:13:49 GMT -6
I would agree with you, except that your commentary on the graph included the conclusion that spending was "unsupportable", apparently based on that graph (and if not on that, you didn't otherwise source it). I am forced to conclude that your conclusion owes to the only significant visible shift on the chart, i.e. the relative inversion of defense versus social spending. Flitz, I'm curious, did the spending graph surprise you? I would think the historical spending trends might have surprised you given the views expressed in your earlier posts. Jim
|
|