I'm curious to hear how much time you spent making that list. LOL
No more than 10-15 minutes.
Look, I'll respond to a couple of those just to show how your list if full of crap. I'm not going to debate them all since we'd be here til the 2016 election and still disagree.
Last time I checked, we've already debated them.
First, I called Catboy's post "hyperbole" because he said that if Romney was elected we would go into a "Dark Ages state," that the Republican party was trying to turn the country into a "theocracy" and that education and reason were going to take a backseat to a "crusade against non-Christians."
That's just a bit over the top, isn't it? As in, even if it were intended metaphorically, the metaphor would be neither realistic nor apt. So, yeah, it's hyperbole.
I don't disagree with any of this.
On the other hand, entitlement programs are, as currently managed (and whether you like to hear it or not), a cancer on our economy. Entitlement programs (unemployment, SS, medicare, medicaid, welfare programs) take up about 55 to 60% of the total federal budget. Yes, we should have those programs for the genuinely needy, to the extent we can afford it as a society, but more than half of the budget??? That shouldn't be, and until recently, it wasn't like that. (And remember, that's from a budget where 40% of all the dollars spent are borrowed, i.e. just adding to the national debt.) Just 30 years ago, the percentage of American households receiving some kind of federal assistance was about 30%. Now it's over 50%. The number of people in the USA on food stamps has DOUBLED just in the last four years. Is this sound management when it results in a trillion dollar deficit, every year? If entitlement payouts are not reformed, the status quo will ultimately result in the collapse of our government and economy. We may disagree about to fix it, but as currently managed, the entitlement program situation is, metaphorically, an ever-metastasizing cancer, in that it is grown beyond a level of healthy management into becoming a deadly drain on the body, and cannot just be "cut off." This is not 'hyperbole.'
Let me begin by including your whole quote since this looks like an argument over semantics:
I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it, we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.
There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.
I can't help but notice that you used the term "societal cancer" and not "economic cancer," and this was immediately after you described it as a "socialist abomination," so I'm having difficulty looking at this from the point of view that you were only referring to the effects of entitlement programs on the debt and deficit without reform. I never argued that there isn't a need for reform. It should be noted though that Social Security if an example of an entitlement program that does not have a budget shortfall; in fact, it produced a surplus in the most recent years. If one were to hypothetically increase the payroll tax on individuals making more than $250,000 to make up for a hypothetical budget shortfall of Social Security in the future, which may or may not happen, I assume you would still consider it a societal cancer, and this is one of the reasons why I believe your statement was hyperbole. Arguing that entitlement programs are a societal cancer, by your logic, is like saying the United States military is a societal cancer (military spending is also going up).
The second reason your statement was hyperbole was because there is a fundamental flaw in your comparison between entitlement programs and cancer. While cancer is malignant, uncontrollable, and yields no benefits, entitlement programs are not some uncontrollable malignant force killing society, and they definitely yield benefits. Cancer, if left to its own devices, often results in death. The statement "leaving entitlement programs to their own devices" is fundamentally flawed in the same way it's flawed to posit a United States that never passes any new laws or budgets. Even if one were to consider a world where "leaving entitlement programs to their own devices" is a logical statement, I hardly think the result would be the death of society.
Third, the mere fact that your statement, metaphor or not, was an exaggeration shows that it is considered hyperbole since entitlement programs are not actually killing society.
Fourth, the fact that these entitlement programs have not always had budget shortfalls and can have their budget shortfalls eliminated or reduced is evidence that they are not actually a cancer on the national debt, pretending you said "economic cancer" rather than "societal cancer." You're free to argue that budget shortfalls are a harmful to the debt and deficit, but entitlement programs are not inherently bad themselves if this is what you meant by "societal cancer." And even then, it's a stretch to say "budget shortfalls are a societal cancer."
Fifth, I do have to admit when I'm wrong. I was wrong that you and The Catboy both used hyperbole in equal ways. While you took cancer, something that's deathly serious, very much unlike entitlement programs, and evokes a lot of emotion, to exaggerate the effect of entitlement programs on the debt (still pretending you said economic cancer), The Catboy said basically that Republicans would cause a Dark Ages state in terms of our education system. Considering that a.) conservatives often times advocate not teaching evolution in public schools, b.) refusing to teach known science on religious grounds is a form of intellectual repressiveness, and c.) "Dark Ages" is also defined as "a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc," then one could successfully argue that The Catboy's comments weren't hyperbole or even colorful metaphor; they could be taken literally. Sorry, Catboy.
Ok, now how about the durable goods statement. My statement was that durable goods went down over 13% last month (August) alone. And that was true :
http://online.wsj.co...1483101410.html
Your comeback was to point out that durable goods, overall since Obama and the stimulus came along, are improved:
http://ycharts.com/i...le_goods_orders
And, looking at the chart at that link, you can see we're both right. General trend of improvement, then a deep crash in August. I never rebutted your statement because you were correct. But I was too - biggest single-month drop since the depth of the crisis in 2008-2009. Wonder how next month will look?
I don't think there appears to be any disagreement here. I could get into the specifics on why the sudden drop occurred, but that's no longer relevant. I appreciate the humble concession though.
1) Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean you're wrong either, it's just that political causes and effects are never certainties. You may think one thing is to blame, while I blame another thing.
I agree with you completely.
You may have an article that says x, I have an article that says y.
This doesn't mean that X and Y are equally valid in terms of what's supported by evidence. For example, you can't logically claim that the new voter ID laws aren't a form of voter fraud themselves when all the evidence appears to point in that direction. The same goes for many of the things from your past that I listed above. The numbers show us that trickle-down economics don't work. The numbers show us that the provisions in the Stimulus, for the most part, have a stimulating effect on the economy. The numbers show us that, without Romney's specifics on closing tax loopholes, there is no way Romney could implement his 20% tax cuts and increased military spending without either a.) increasing taxes on the middle class, or b.) substantially increasing the deficit and debt. The data shows us that man-made global warming is happening. The data overwhelmingly shows us that evolution is real. The data shows us that same-sex couples are just as capable as parents as heterosexual couples. The data shows that taxes on the rich are at historic lows. The data shows that Obama is the only candidate who actually has a viable deficit-reduction plan, and it has the added bonus of including specifics. The problem isn't that I read X and you read Y; the problem is, respectfully, that the numbers often times haven't agreed with Y.
2) You just want to push all the blame away from your guy, when he is the responsible person in office.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the debt or the economy, but it doesn't matter; the answers are pretty much the same. I'm not deciding, "I like Obama so let me arbitrarily deflect all this blame away from him." Referring to the debt, it is accurate to say that Bush policies are what created this debt and deficit, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are policies the Republican candidate for president still embraces, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are still in effect, it is accurate to say that Obama wants to repeal these debt-causing Bush policies, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are still in effect because of the Republicans, it is accurate to say that Obama has a specific deficit-reduction plan, and it is accurate to say that Romney's plan without specific loopholes would increase the debt and deficit substantially.
He ASKED for it, but he's not taking responsibility for it.
Regarding the debt, Obama didn't ask for it. Although Obama has marginally decreased the deficit, the deficit-causing Bush policies are still in effect, and we still have a debt problem. The Bush tax cuts would have been allowed to expire if the Republicans hadn't voted no on just keeping the tax cuts for the middle class from expiring, and Obama would have successfully lowered the deficit substantially. Obama has specific plans to decrease the debt and deficit. Romney will increase them.
Regarding the economy, Obama takes full credit for the economic recovery that has occurred. I'm sorry that the Recession was extremely bad, worse than we thought for the Stimulus that was passed, and that the Republicans have blocked further stimulus and infrastructure spending, but them's the facts.
He said if it wasn't fixed in one term, then he should be voted out. I say, ok then.
As far as I'm aware, Obama never claimed to completely fix either the debt or the economy by the end of his first term. If I'm mistaken, then that was a promise Obama probably couldn't have kept. Then again, if one takes away the Republican obstructionism, it's interesting to imagine how much better they could have been by now. It's all speculation of course, but it's speculation based in numerical evidence.
It's also worth noting that if Obama did say this, it doesn't automatically mean Obama's fiscal policies are ineffective and Romney's fiscal policies are effective.
3) Unlike the fears expressed by some here about how the world will revert to the Spanish Inquisition if Romney is elected, the only thing I see really being that different as a result of this election is Supreme Court nominations, and even there I expect limited ripples in the pond. I will be voting against Obama, but he's the president now and today was a good day, so whatever.
I don't think the world would revert to the Spanish Inquisition if Romney were elected, but I also don't think Supreme Court nominations would be the only noticeable difference of a Romney presidency. But I'm not going to get into all that right now.
4) Finally, just because I don't accept your "evidence" as proof of your position doesn't make me a hypocrite.
I refer you to your earlier quote:
He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!
So yes, when I present reputable evidence and you "admit nothing" and "deny everything," that makes you a hypocrite. The hyperbole thing was also an example of hypocrisy.
Since I'm not compelled to come back for the last word every time, it really doesn't bother me if something gets left hanging without being argued back and forth. It's not like I'm going to change my mind, nor will you. So, peace, brother. And I'm out.
(Now you can have the last word.)
Like I told someone else earlier, no one is asking you to argue with me.
Obama hasn't done anything good
Obama has accomplished
a lot in the past four years.
and I don't like his morals.
Care to be more specific?
