User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who's your GOP pick for 2012?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bachmann

    0 0%
  • Cain

    1 3.33%
  • Gingrich

    0 0%
  • Huntsman

    4 13.33%
  • Paul

    23 76.67%
  • Perry

    0 0%
  • Romney

    2 6.67%
  • Santorum

    0 0%
First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 287

  1. #151
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Short of giving Romney a lie detector test, how did you determine he's deliberately deceiving you? You can't. It's fair to say Romney speculated about the defense budget cuts and Ron Paul communicated a better understanding and corrected Romney, but overall, Romney, Paul, and Gingrich are all in a league of their own and doing very well in the debates.
    1. Using base-line budgeting when referring to "cuts" has been a means of deceiving the public for some time.
    2. Sequestration has been the #1 political issue a week or two and has been a possibility for 3 months. There is no excuse for not knowing what it actually means if your running for president.
    3. I prefer candidates that can think and not just spit out lines that are fed to them.
    4. Romney IS a finance guy. He should know this.
    5. He should also know with unlimited deficit spending it's a bit of a farce to say one thing is being cut to pay for another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    There's no question that Ron Paul is knowledgeable, but he's also naive to think that the benefits of a pure Libertarian-isolationist ideology will outweigh any costs. His vision is founded on uncertain premises; such as, we are targeted by Islamic extremists because we interfere in their business. With that said, do you consider it a fear tactic too?
    1. http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurar...ccupation.html
    Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, will present findings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that argue that the majority of suicide terrorism around the world since 1980 has had a common cause: military occupation.

    Pape and his team of researchers draw on data produced by a six-year study of suicide terrorist attacks around the world that was partially funded by the Defense Department's Defense Threat Reduction Agency. They have compiled the terrorism statistics in a publicly available database comprising some 10,000 records on some 2,200 suicide terrorism attacks, dating back to the first suicide terrorism attack of modern times*— the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which killed 241 U.S. Marines.

    2. Where's the evidence that they hate us because we're awesome?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #152
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Short of giving Romney a lie detector test, how did you determine he's deliberately deceiving you? You can't. It's fair to say Romney speculated about the defense budget cuts and Ron Paul communicated a better understanding and corrected Romney.
    He states it as fact, thus he is either lying or talking out of his ass. Neither is very admirable.

  3. #153
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Short of giving Romney a lie detector test, how did you determine he's deliberately deceiving you? You can't. It's fair to say Romney speculated about the defense budget cuts and Ron Paul communicated a better understanding and corrected Romney.

    There's no question that Ron Paul is knowledgeable, but he's also naive to think that the benefits of a pure Libertarian-isolationist ideology will outweigh any costs. His vision is founded on uncertain premises; such as, we are targeted by Islamic extremists because we interfere in their business. With that said, do you consider that a fear tactic too?

    Overall, I think Romney, Paul, and Gingrich are all in a league of their own and doing very well in the debates.
    A lie detector test is not always necessary. Most often a fact-check suffices. For example in last nights debate:

    "MITT ROMNEY: "What they're doing is cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget."


    RON PAUL: "They're nibbling away at baseline budgeting. ... There's nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they're not going — the budget isn't going up as rapidly as they want it to."


    THE FACTS: Paul was more accurate than Romney in describing what is happening with defense spending. Constraints in the military budget are much more modest than Romney suggested.


    Both Romney and rival Rick Perry have been criticizing Obama for looming defense cuts that are triggered by the failure of the deficit supercommittee to act. But the cuts would only slow the rate of growth of Pentagon spending, which has been vastly increased because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now winding down. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the planned Pentagon budget for 2021 would be some $700 billion, an increase over the current level of about $520 billion. The cuts agreed to last summer plus the automatic reductions would trim the projected 2021 budget by about $110 billion.


    Moreover, the spending cuts set in motion by the supercommittee's failure to reach an agreement are not to begin until January 2013, which gives lawmakers time to try again to produce a debt plan. That's what Obama has in mind — using the threat of defense cuts to push lawmakers to make a deal.


    Romney's figure encompasses two sets of Pentagon spending cuts, only one of which was proposed by Obama. The president's budget called for $450 billion in savings from the defense budget; the rest is fallout from the supercommittee, a creature of Congress
    " (Source: cbs.com)
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  4. #154
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Using base-line budgeting when referring to "cuts" has been a means of deceiving the public for some time.
    If that's common knowledge, then why would Romney do it and risk losing his credibility? Think about it.

    Interesting article, but it's not that simple. There are many, many, many more reasons for terrorism/war; not limited to military occupation: power, money, resources, religion, hate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Where's the evidence that they hate us because we're awesome?

    (Please read my comment above.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    He states it as fact, thus he is either lying or talking out of his ass. Neither is very admirable.
    You're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    A lie detector test is not always necessary. Most often a fact-check suffices. For example in last nights debate:
    ...
    Or that. Much appreciated! (:

    Considering everything here, it sounds like Romney didn't know the details and as Nicodemus suggested, was talking out of his...


    Romney is a good man. He's not perfect, but he's darn near close. That's my feeling. Time will tell. (:

  5. #155
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    So if today's military spending is $520B.

    And 2021's military spending was budgeted to be $700B.

    Military spending was budgeted to increase at 3% per year ($520B x 1.03^10 = $700B).

    The cuts to the budgeted spending would cut that rate of increase to 1.25% per year ($520B x 1.0125^10 = $590B).

    I just wanted to do those numbers for myself, and I figured everyone else might like to see them as well.

    It's hard to say what annualized growth over that 10-yr period will be, but I doubt it will be 3%.

    In a "muddle-through" scenario, like I expect, it will probably be more like ~2%.

    I, personally, think we should do something like cap military spending.

    I'm not sure at current $ level, or current % of GDP (~5% of GDP).

    I think I'd probably prefer % of GDP -- right around 5%.

    There are major spillover effects from military spending that benefit the economy.

    Also, military spending has been shown to have the highest Keynesian multiplier of any kind of government spending.

    As such, spending on it will improve the overall economy more than any other kind of spending, and cutting it will hurt more.

    Anyway, any growth rate for military spending less than the growth rate for GDP obviously decreases military spending as a % of GDP.

    I think it's also important to note that military spending as a % of GDP is not really all that high.

    We gutted the military in the 90s, after the Cold War was over, and have increased it (albeit still to a historically low level) since 9/11.


  6. #156
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Also, I'm confused by those numbers @spamtar... do you know what they measure?

    They seemed low to me from the get-go (5% of a $15T economy = $750B, not $520B).

    I just went and checked, and the level of military spending in 2010 is more like $685B...

    I wonder if they're not accounting for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...


  7. #157
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    1. Using base-line budgeting when referring to "cuts" has been a means of deceiving the public for some time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    He states it as fact, thus he is either lying or talking out of his ass. Neither is very admirable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    You're right.
    I don't see why talking about cuts to base-line budgeting, if I understand what that means (and I think I do), as cuts is talking out of his ass. If the budget was expected to be $700B in 10 years, and it's going to be $590B instead, in my mind, those are cuts.

  8. #158
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    If that's common knowledge, then why would Romney do it and risk losing his credibility? Think about it.
    1. Because the attack was against Obama and he didn't think he would get called on it.

    2. Because it fits into the democrat vs republican narrative that both parties want the American people to buy into. They both speak of cuts in baseline terms because it allows them to complain about the size of their party's slice of the pie getting thinner at the cost of the other party's slice. All the while the whole pie is really getting rapidly bigger. That's the game. Ron Paul doesn't play games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Interesting article, but it's not that simple. There are many, many, many more reasons for terrorism/war; not limited to military occupation: power, money, resources, religion, hate...
    Silly phDs and there simplistic conclusions based on 6 years of research and 10k records.

    The point is that you cannot solve terrorism with occupation regardless of what other contributing factors there might be if the occupation itself is causing terrorism.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #159
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I don't see why talking about cuts to base-line budgeting, if I understand what that means (and I think I do), as cuts is talking out of his ass. If the budget was expected to be $700B in 10 years, and it's going to be $590B instead, in my mind, those are cuts.
    If you give that extra information you may call them cuts. But, without it people presume a cut will mean a decrease in spending from current rates not less of an increase.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #160
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I love how you talk about it like it's a good thing.
    Its a very good thing. Our military budget is needlessly bloated. If we cut our budget IN HALF we would still be spending more than double the amount that Russia (2nd biggest military budget in the world) does. We dont need that much.
    +10% Crit Chance

Similar Threads

  1. Republican debate
    By jixmixfix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-18-2015, 07:42 PM
  2. The Middle East dreamed up at the Republican debate doesn’t really exist
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2015, 07:44 PM
  3. 2012 Presidential Debates: Round 1
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 10-27-2012, 10:59 AM
  4. Your Most Anticipated Movies of 2011/2012
    By Crescent Fresh in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-08-2012, 04:01 AM
  5. Debating styles
    By labyrinthine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 08:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO