BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
PYSPEED
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-28-2008, 08:02 PM   #89
Call
Call
 
Call's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 135i, 08 & 07 X5, 05 MCSC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gainesville, GA

Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)

sethchan, I'll not respond to some of what you said because some of it is your opinion. I try not to respond to opinions because they can change. So I'd like to just stay with the facts...they never change.

Addressing the issue of the Clinton Administration and a balanced budget. I'll have to assume some haven't a clue as to how a budget works but I'll try to keep it simple. When you set a budget it's for a fiscal year (12 months). A budget has debits & credits. Debits are the expenditures side of the ledger and credits are the income side. In a balanced budget both sides are equal.

Clinton achieve a balanced budget by increasing his credit (income) side by "borrowing" $100's of millions of dollars from the SS trust fund and setting the due date 10 years in the future. By doing this he didn't have to count it against the debit side of the ledger. Those funds wouldn't come due on his watch...it was't counted against him...in the eyes of the less informed.

He also cut billions of dollars out of the Defense budget (expenditures) and our intelligence budget (expenditures).

Now, don't forget that huge tax increase he got passed in Congress (income) that he gave away to his friends (expenditures).

I think most of this is commonly referred to as fuzzy math...fuzzy to those who just refuse to believe the spots before their eyes...they would rather believe those spots are before someone else's eyes. If you support all of the above that's find but don't deny it in one breath and then accuse the other side of doing it and saying it's all wrong. I call that disingenuious.

Call
__________________
Call is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-28-2008, 11:55 PM   #90
sethchan
First Lieutenant
 
sethchan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden

Posts: 397
iTrader: (0)

I think we are on the same side about that

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARES45 View Post
It is not the affair that bothers me, it is the purgery. Palin has yet to break any laws, especially while in the role of the President of the United States.
The parsing bothered me, too. It wasn't, actually perjury, however. First, under the definition of sex that the plaintiff's lawyer gave in court, it wasn't sex. I mean if someone asks, "Did you have sex?" and you ask "What do you mean by sex?" and they come back and give a definition that doesn't include what you did, that's a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Clinton was being sued as part f a partisan witch hunt. He was under no obligation to help the people suing him by volunteering information. What would you have had him say? "Under that definition, no, we didn't technically have sex, but she did give me some blowjobs"?

And not counting blowjobs as sex isn't even that outlandish. Many people only could the one specific act as sex. I believe that view is common among Catholic girls, or certainly was common when I was young.

Second, even lying under oath is not, in itself, perjury. To be perjury, the lie has to be "material" to a case. Now, you have to remember that the Lewinsky affair was brought in to substantiate Paula Jones's allegation that her career was damaged by her rebuff of Clinton's advances in that Arkansas hotel room. But the judge had already ruled that even if Paula Jones's allegations about Clinton's conduct were true, she cold not recover damages for the simple reason that her career had not been damaged.

So the charge of perjury fails not just one but both tests.

This is not to say that I think what Clinton did is OK. I don't. To have done that, with all there was at stake, in a country obsessed with sniffing other people's sheets, was an appallingly selfish act. Disgusting.

I'm not going to cry any tears over Lewinsky, though. She was old enough to know what she was doing and had, in fact, previously pursued one of her married teachers.
sethchan is offline   Sweden
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 12:10 AM   #91
sethchan
First Lieutenant
 
sethchan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden

Posts: 397
iTrader: (0)

Not fuzzy at all

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
sethchan, I'll not respond to some of what you said because some of it is your opinion. I try not to respond to opinions because they can change. So I'd like to just stay with the facts...they never change.

Addressing the issue of the Clinton Administration and a balanced budget. I'll have to assume some haven't a clue as to how a budget works but I'll try to keep it simple. When you set a budget it's for a fiscal year (12 months). A budget has debits & credits. Debits are the expenditures side of the ledger and credits are the income side. In a balanced budget both sides are equal.

Clinton achieve a balanced budget by increasing his credit (income) side by "borrowing" $100's of millions of dollars from the SS trust fund and setting the due date 10 years in the future. By doing this he didn't have to count it against the debit side of the ledger. Those funds wouldn't come due on his watch...it was't counted against him...in the eyes of the less informed.

He also cut billions of dollars out of the Defense budget (expenditures) and our intelligence budget (expenditures).

Now, don't forget that huge tax increase he got passed in Congress (income) that he gave away to his friends (expenditures).

I think most of this is commonly referred to as fuzzy math...fuzzy to those who just refuse to believe the spots before their eyes...they would rather believe those spots are before someone else's eyes. If you support all of the above that's find but don't deny it in one breath and then accuse the other side of doing it and saying it's all wrong. I call that disingenuious.

Call
Clinton did nothing at all new in the way he counted the Social Security surplus. If you are actually as interested in the facts as you claim you are, the whole history of the funding of Social Security is on the Social Security website. Here is the summary:
1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Note: "Off-budget for all purposes since 1990." That means that the facts are the 100% opposite of your assertion on this issue. This is what happens when you get your information from Rush Limbaugh and Faux News.

The detailed history can be found here:

Clinton did raise taxes. Got a problem with that? Reagan's Social Security tax increase was the largest tax increase in history. HW raised taxes, too. Paying as you go instead of leaving our grandkids to pay for the party we're having is the responsible thing to do.

As for lowering military spending, under Clinton, military spending was still as much as for practically every other country in the world COMBINED and this after the USSR, this big enemy that supposedly threatened our existence, fell apart. The Cold War ended just before he became president. HW reduced the rate of increase in defense spending, too. A small "peace dividend" was hardly irresponsible when we no longer had 20,000 nukes pointed at us.

I don't think you can argue that Clinton reduced intelligence spending. You have no case here at all, despite what you may have heard from Rush Limbaugh. First of all, nobody knows what the U.S. spends on intelligence, since most of the spending is in the "black" budget, completely hidden from scrutiny. Second, Clinton raised the counter-terrorism to a cabinet position. Shrub demoted counter-terrorism in part because Condoleeza Rice believed that non-state terrorists were not a threat, only nations were. We can see how that worked out.
sethchan is offline   Sweden
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 08:10 AM   #92
Call
Call
 
Call's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 135i, 08 & 07 X5, 05 MCSC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gainesville, GA

Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)

Sethchan, in reply to your accusation that I get my information from Rush and Fox News only implies other sources are either not available or ignored by me. That is your opinion...I don't reply to opinions. And I'll tell you why...more times than not no gain is made one way or the other when people get all hot and bothers on someone else's opinions, especially when facts often times get in the way of one expressing their opinion. Nonetheless, I will add that my information provided here is from the application of facts as they are available within the framework of rational thought and the reality of the situation.

You apparently misunderstand the actual application of all funds recovered by the Federal Government from all sources including SSA as they can and are applied to deriving the budget. Please note from the sources you provided how complicated and truncated the accounting procedure for SSA itself has been made...on purpose I might add not for clarification but to continue misuse and misappropriation of same. For example:

"However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is."

It's part of the fuzzy math of our government; a means in which to be correct technically but not right specifically. This game is played by both the Congress and the Executive Branches of Government; and, by both major Party's.

I apologize to those who have had to read this boring part of the discussion but it was made necessary to bring rational thought to the table in regard to what a balanced budget is. Opps, that little word, again. I guess it does depend on the definition of the word "is":wink:

Now to this thing about raising taxes to pay as we go. I love a real balanced budget but when someone tries to tell me their budget is balanced and it still leaves a bill for the future to have to be paid by someone else it's not a balanced budget.

And your argument on lowering spending under Clinton and trying to compare it to the budgets of other countries...we don't look at the budgets of other countries to determine ours so that's not germaine to the topic at hand. All that does is attempting to justify a position that has no substance.
And saying HW reduced the rate of increase in defense spending is a little weak. Reduced the rate of increase as compared to what? The bottom line is HW's defense budget was an increase when Clinton's was a decrease.

As for the reduction in the intelligence spending...at the time of the reduction we didn't know it but afterwards we did. It was evident after Bush came to office and received the intelligence report revealing a reduction in field operatives expenditures and the lack of actual information available. Our intelligence agencies were in complete disorder. They couldn't even talk to each other. Clinton's raising counter-terrorism to a cabinet position only served to bring accountability to him so he could control the budget you so clearly indicated no one really knew how much was being spent. Now he knew.

I respect you as a 1ADDICT brother...I just can't respect your arguments on the content of the subject at hand. They are inconsistent and lack a degree of rational thought. I'll attack your positions but I will not attack you personally.

Call

Call
__________________
Call is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 08:40 AM   #93
Steelerbimmer
Private First Class
 
Drives:
Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 174
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
Nixon, would you rather both sides negotiate in public? Roll the tape from yesterday and today and you will see the Liberal Democrat leadership step out in the public and make all kinds of accusations against McCain. You would have thought this whole thing was about McCain. If you think that way then maybe you just don't understand anything.

What do you mean by bipartisanship? It sure isn't limited to a Republican getting a Democrat to do what he wants. McCain came to town to talk with his side of the isle...to get them included in the elements at hand...a negotiated bill that everyone can live with. I think he accomplished the initiative to do just that.

You don't have to be in the same room with someone to negotiate a deal but you do have to bring reason to the table. If you think the Liberal Democrat Leadership brought reason to the table you understand what went on behind closed doors.

I'll let you in on something they brought to the table that had nothing to do with the crisis at hand but thought they could just tack this on and noone would know it until it was too late...$500 Million for ACORN...are you kidding me. That one thing alone would have been enough for me to go ballistic. Yep, got the Country on their minds alright I'd called ACORN a special interest group but then don't depend on me, go read about them yourself.

And the debate...I thought both did a great job as debates go. It was incumbent upon Obama to make the case he was truly Presidential...more so than McCain. He did not achieve that. Round One to McCain by the slimmest of margins.

Call

You're right on the money Call.

Well said!

The bottom line for me is that I do not know either of these men personally, however, I need to judge them and their motives from what I hear.

Also, I will judge them like I was taught, by the company they keep and have kept.

With those guiding principles in mind, since McCain has been around heroes all his life and B.O. has surrounded himself with zeroes all of his life, I think I'll go with the older fella and the heroes!

His good motives are without question for the USA.

B.O.'s, well it kinda smells.
Steelerbimmer is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 09:39 AM   #94
sethchan
First Lieutenant
 
sethchan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden

Posts: 397
iTrader: (0)

You're the one not being rational

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post

You apparently misunderstand the actual application of all funds recovered by the Federal Government from all sources including SSA as they can and are applied to deriving the budget. Please note from the sources you provided how complicated and truncated the accounting procedure for SSA itself has been made...on purpose I might add not for clarification but to continue misuse and misappropriation of same. For example:

"However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is."

It's part of the fuzzy math of our government; a means in which to be correct technically but not right specifically. This game is played by both the Congress and the Executive Branches of Government; and, by both major Party's.
First of all, there's nothing fuzzy about it. It's just like an annual report that lists pre-tax profits and after-tax profits. Perfectly transparent. Second, you initially asserted, falsely, that Clinton finagled the numbers. Now you are admitting that this kind of thing has been going on under both parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
Now to this thing about raising taxes to pay as we go. I love a real balanced budget but when someone tries to tell me their budget is balanced and it still leaves a bill for the future to have to be paid by someone else it's not a balanced budget.
The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent for another 75 years. QED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
And your argument on lowering spending under Clinton and trying to compare it to the budgets of other countries...we don't look at the budgets of other countries to determine ours so that's not germaine to the topic at hand.

All that does is attempting to justify a position that has no substance.
And saying HW reduced the rate of increase in defense spending is a little weak. Reduced the rate of increase as compared to what? The bottom line is HW's defense budget was an increase when Clinton's was a decrease.
Again, you mischaracterize what I wrote. Defense spending under both presidents slowed. Properly so, since the enemy that we were supposedly spending all that money to defend ourselves against no longer existed. Its funny how you wingers always give credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War but then, for purposes of talking about the defense budget, act as it it is still going on. Need I remind you that a 400-ship bluewater navy, a huge air force hundreds of thousands of troops, hundreds of military bases all over the world -- and so on -- were irrelevant to the people who actualy attacked us on Sept 11?

Comparing budgets to other countries is irrelevant? I think not. Our defense budget is as big as the defense budgets of all of the other countries in the world PUT TOGETHER. How likely is it that the U.S. is going to be attacked by the pooled resources of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER? The amount of money spent by the U.S. on defense is still way out of proportion to the actual threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
As for the reduction in the intelligence spending...at the time of the reduction we didn't know it but afterwards we did. It was evident after Bush came to office and received the intelligence report revealing a reduction in field operatives expenditures and the lack of actual information available. Our intelligence agencies were in complete disorder. They couldn't even talk to each other. Clinton's raising counter-terrorism to a cabinet position only served to bring accountability to him so he could control the budget you so clearly indicated no one really knew how much was being spent. Now he knew.
No. We do not, and will never, know what the budget on intelligence was. And of course the agencies could talk to each other. What you are aserting is pure bullshit straight out of Rish Limbaugh's ass. Simply. Not. True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
I respect you as a 1ADDICT brother...I just can't respect your arguments on the content of the subject at hand. They are inconsistent and lack a degree of rational thought. I'll attack your positions but I will not attack you personally.
Oh, and I respect your taste in cars. It's just your political arguments that are poorly informed, moronic and based on wingnut crapola. Nothing personal.
sethchan is offline   Sweden
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 11:05 AM   #95
Call
Call
 
Call's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 135i, 08 & 07 X5, 05 MCSC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gainesville, GA

Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)

Sethchan, I have not presumed only the Democrat side has played with the numbers...that was you accusing the Republicans of the ones only playing with the numbers.

Your quote:
"The conservative fiscal policy OF THE RIGHT???!!! You mean the massive budget deficits of Reagan and both Bushes still mean nothing to you? The last Democratic president NOT to have a conservative fiscal policy was LBJ. LBJ!!!!

40 years ago.

It is true testimony to the power of the corporate-owned news media that anyone could possibly associate the right with conservative fiscal policy."

and:
"Its weird, too, because the last time the right was more focused on balanced budgets than the Democrats, was in the Depression, when balanced budgets would have been counterproductive. So I would agree it has been a ploy."

No, defense spending didn't "slow" under both Bush & Clinton. Under Clinton is was cut; under Bush it was increased.

As for the SSTF and it's solvency...who was talking about the SSTF's solvency? I was talking about the debt Clinton left that you said he didn't leave...from all expenditures.

You may not have been around when Congress passed a new fiscal budget right after the Vietnam War ended but it was more than twice the previous budget...after the war ended. Things other than wars take a lot of money if you fund them.

As for being attached by the pooled resources of all the other countries of the world...it only takes one little bomb from one little ill-intended group to do enough damage that you just might wake up from...but then you might not. I can't afford a mindset like that.

And finally, you said, "And of course the agencies could talk to each other".
Sorry, you must have missed the fully televised hearings of the 911 Commission which exposed the memo where Jamie Gorlic, a member of said Commission would not allow the FBI and the CIA to even talk to each other. Yep, that same lady who walked off from Fannie Mae with $75 million during the Jim Johnson era at Fannie Mae. And she was only their lead council...both Clinton appointees.

It appears this discussion with you serves no further purpose. I refuse to come down to your level and start calling you names. Your arguments have no substance but I hope to meet you sometime so we can drive our ONEs together and have a great time and maybe a beer.

Call
__________________
Call is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 12:28 PM   #96
sethchan
First Lieutenant
 
sethchan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden

Posts: 397
iTrader: (0)

I haven't "called names" any more than you have

Quote:
Originally Posted by Call View Post
Sethchan, I have not presumed only the Democrat side has played with the numbers...that was you accusing the Republicans of the ones only playing with the numbers.

Your quote:
"The conservative fiscal policy OF THE RIGHT???!!! You mean the massive budget deficits of Reagan and both Bushes still mean nothing to you? The last Democratic president NOT to have a conservative fiscal policy was LBJ. LBJ!!!!

40 years ago.

It is true testimony to the power of the corporate-owned news media that anyone could possibly associate the right with conservative fiscal policy."

and:
"Its weird, too, because the last time the right was more focused on balanced budgets than the Democrats, was in the Depression, when balanced budgets would have been counterproductive. So I would agree it has been a ploy."

No, defense spending didn't "slow" under both Bush & Clinton. Under Clinton is was cut; under Bush it was increased.

As for the SSTF and it's solvency...who was talking about the SSTF's solvency? I was talking about the debt Clinton left that you said he didn't leave...from all expenditures.

You may not have been around when Congress passed a new fiscal budget right after the Vietnam War ended but it was more than twice the previous budget...after the war ended. Things other than wars take a lot of money if you fund them.

As for being attached by the pooled resources of all the other countries of the world...it only takes one little bomb from one little ill-intended group to do enough damage that you just might wake up from...but then you might not. I can't afford a mindset like that.

And finally, you said, "And of course the agencies could talk to each other".
Sorry, you must have missed the fully televised hearings of the 911 Commission which exposed the memo where Jamie Gorlic, a member of said Commission would not allow the FBI and the CIA to even talk to each other. Yep, that same lady who walked off from Fannie Mae with $75 million during the Jim Johnson era at Fannie Mae. And she was only their lead council...both Clinton appointees.

It appears this discussion with you serves no further purpose. I refuse to come down to your level and start calling you names. Your arguments have no substance but I hope to meet you sometime so we can drive our ONEs together and have a great time and maybe a beer.

Call
It is, however, typical of right-wingers to whine when they get EXACTLY the same treatment they've been dishing out. I attacked your arguments, not you. Just like you claim you were doing. So don't you dare get all sanctimonious on me.

You are apparently attempting to claim that Clinton did not balance the budget except by some kind of slight of hand. That, my friend is just wingnut bullshit. I thought you were trying to make an argument about how he accounted or Social Security. Sorry to have misinterpreted you.

Your recollection of the budget ofter the Vietnam War ended is false. In any case, Ford, a Republican was president, so you can't blame Democrats.

As for defense expenditures, you still can't seem to understand the absurdity of a defense budget that is equal to the spending OF ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED. Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, Spain -- and more -- COMBINED. Half of all the defense spending ON THE PLANET. As if maybe spending only 40% of the world's total, or 45% would put the U.S. in jeopardy.

Then you give the example of one little bomb. EXACTLY. You just made my point. All the defense spending the U.S. does would not protect against a smuggled nuke. And guess who cut funding for the bipartisan program to secure loose Russian nukes? Why, it was George W Bush. A Republican, in case you didn't know.

I don't believe a word of that 911 Commission whitewash. That FBI-CIA thing you refer to was nothing but an excuse. It's been thoroughly debunked. Yes, people interpreted the statute that way, no doubt. There was, however, no bar to sharing the information. The CIA was only restricted from gathering intelligence information on U.S. soil.
sethchan is offline   Sweden
0
Reply With Quote
      09-29-2008, 12:36 PM   #97
Call
Call
 
Call's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 135i, 08 & 07 X5, 05 MCSC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gainesville, GA

Posts: 678
iTrader: (0)

So, Steelebimmer, tell me about your ONE.

Call
__________________
Call is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST