Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 144

Thread: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

  1. #121
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav
    Unless you think that it's necessary.
    So you can spend what you want, as long as you think it's important? Yeah, that does sound pretty fiscally responsible...

    Yes, and Reagan's fiscal conservatism led to the balancing of the budget in the 90s.
    I do not think this is true, certainly not entirely. The dotcom bubble was a big contributor, and that had nothing really to do with Reagan as just one example. Conservatives and liberals all tend to get extreme with Reagan, either love or hate, and all miss the reality, which is that he was a mediocre president. Liberals blame him for all his faults, and miss his strengths, whereas conservatives give him credit for far too much.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #122
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Unless you think that it's necessary.
    It is necessary to prevent economic collapse. It is necessary to defend yourself from invaders.

    Yes, and Reagan's fiscal conservatism led to the balancing of the budget in the 90s.


    Credit computer and technological innovation entirely to Reagan.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #123
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you can spend what you want, as long as you think it's important? Yeah, that does sound pretty fiscally responsible...
    "Wanting" has nothing to do with it. Nobody but anarchists argue that there aren't certain roles which a government must undertake, and nobody but pacifists deny that defense is one of them. The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.

    I do not think this is true, certainly not entirely. The dotcom bubble was a big contributor, and that had nothing really to do with Reagan as just one example.
    It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.

    Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.

    Conservatives and liberals all tend to get extreme with Reagan, either love or hate, and all miss the reality, which is that he was a mediocre president. Liberals blame him for all his faults, and miss his strengths, whereas conservatives give him credit for far too much.
    That's your opinion, I guess.

  4. #124
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.
    This is the positive effect of supply side economics. However not all instances call for such measures. Not to mention, the ends justified the means in regards to abandoning political ideology (fiscal conservativeness).

    It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.
    Already addressed.

    Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.
    I will not deny the supply side policies applied were important in helping pave the way for the recovery. The italics however are a matter of opinion.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #125
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    "Wanting" has nothing to do with it. Nobody but anarchists argue that there aren't certain roles which a government must undertake, and nobody but pacifists deny that defense is one of them. The question then is how much defense spending is necessary. Carter cut defense spending, and look at where he ended up. Whereas the Soviet Union fell almost immediately after Reagan left office.
    You are making the assumption that military spending was the reason the Soviet Union fell, which is at best highly debatable. As a (believe it or not) capitalist, I think that the Soviets where doomed not by our military spending, but by the weaknesses inherent in their own system.

    Furthermore, no one is suggesting that some level of military spending is necessary, but to say that any level, no matter how high is ok(because it's spending we like) is patently false. I joined the navy in 1987, when Reagan was president, and waste, abuse and fraud in the military was at unreal. I remember seeing the orders for 250 dollar wrenches that where seriously inferior to ones you can get from Sears(in fact, we would have gotten alot of our own tools from Sears if allowed, at our own expense).[/quote]

    It was definitely a factor. But Reagan is pretty much the only president to cut non-defense discretionary spending in decades, including those who came after him. In fact, non defense discretionary spending actually rose throughout the time after Reagan left office; only because military spending decreased significantly did we end up with a surplus.
    And this is the problem with what you are doing. You are separating out the spending you support from the spending you like, and saying "hey look at only this part".

    Even the most dedicated fiscal conservatives aren't foolish enough to think we should balance the budget immediately. Reagan never balanced the budget, or even came close, but he set up the conditions that helped lead to its eventual balance.
    Everybody who came before contributed to the conditions that allowed for a balanced budget. Bush the elder, who started the "peace dividend" concept probably contributed as much or more than Reagan himself, as did Clinton, and importantly, as did the congresses under all 3 of those presidents.

    That's your opinion, I guess.
    Of course. It's also I think a much more reasoned opinion than those who blind themselves to his strengths or weaknesses.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You are making the assumption that military spending was the reason the Soviet Union fell, which is at best highly debatable. As a (believe it or not) capitalist, I think that the Soviets where doomed not by our military spending, but by the weaknesses inherent in their own system.
    And Reagan believed that too, which is why he exploited those weaknesses.

    Furthermore, no one is suggesting that some level of military spending is necessary, but to say that any level, no matter how high is ok(because it's spending we like) is patently false. I joined the navy in 1987, when Reagan was president, and waste, abuse and fraud in the military was at unreal. I remember seeing the orders for 250 dollar wrenches that where seriously inferior to ones you can get from Sears(in fact, we would have gotten alot of our own tools from Sears if allowed, at our own expense).
    Look at it this way: we are deciding whether or not to go to war. In the process, do we calculate what the dollar cost of doing so would be, to help us decide? No, because - I have stated this about a hundred times now - fiscal concerns are not present when making national defense decisions, nor should they be.

    Waste and inefficiency are obviously bad, but it would be unreasonable to solely blame Reagan for them.

    And this is the problem with what you are doing. You are separating out the spending you support from the spending you like, and saying "hey look at only this part".
    See above. Also realize that fiscal conservatism has basically nothing to do with defense spending for the reasons stated; in fact, most fiscal conservatives are strong national defense types. It has more to do with the 80% or so of the budget that isn't about defense spending.

    Everybody who came before contributed to the conditions that allowed for a balanced budget. Bush the elder, who started the "peace dividend" concept probably contributed as much or more than Reagan himself, as did Clinton, and importantly, as did the congresses under all 3 of those presidents.
    Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that if 1. the Cold War had not ended and allowed for huge decreases in military spending, or 2. Bush I and Clinton had spent as much as they still did without Reagan having ever cut domestic spending, then the surpluses would never have existed.

  7. #127
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post

    Military spending - I have brought this up several times, but it apparently hasn't been enough - has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. Nobody who is sane has ever argued that reducing the deficit is even remotely as important as national security; defense policy is therefore formed solely formed based on the maximalization of security, with no regard for fiscal concerns.

    WOW!!! You couldn't be more wrong. Military Spending does have to do with Fiscal Responsibility. ALL MONIES ARE..If we pay interest every year on debt form monies spent on Military then its Fiscal.

  8. #128
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by pugetsoundwa View Post
    WOW!!! You couldn't be more wrong. Military Spending does have to do with Fiscal Responsibility. ALL MONIES ARE..If we pay interest every year on debt form monies spent on Military then its Fiscal.
    So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.

  9. #129
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Closure_and_Realignment_Commission]Base Realignment and Closure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #130
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.
    Hope you aren't trying to spin from Military spending as a whole to military decession in the middle of a war or battle as thats dishonest if you are. You said Military Spending.....I know the Apache program got axed mainly because of the cost...

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •