[quote]Professor X wrote:
That’s funny. Three other people agreed with what I wrote in that thread so apparently you are the only one who considered it “outrageous”. It was a post about measuring your arm flexed or unflexed. In what way was the response “outrageous”?
[/quote]
It was not WHAT you said. It was HOW you said it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That’s funny. Three other people agreed with what I wrote in that thread so apparently you are the only one who considered it “outrageous”. It was a post about measuring your arm flexed or unflexed. In what way was the response “outrageous”?
It was not WHAT you said. It was HOW you said it.[/quote]
…and three other people agreed with me. You are the ONLY ONE who made a negative comment about that statement by assuming one other poster was flaming me when he logged back on and said he wasn’t. That implies your perception is wrong if more disagree with you than agree with you. My comment, stated the way it was, ended the discussion. I am not sure why you think I need to respond in ways that make you personally happy.
Here come the PC police…
A little more on entitlements.
It was so cute when Hillary stood up and gave a standing O when Bush referenced the fact that Congress hadn’t passed his Social Security reform plan.
But Bush pointed out immediately afterward that it still needs to be fixed, and boy is he correct. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest consumers of federal dollars - by a huge margin - and the Baby Boomers haven’t even retired yet.
From a page 1 WSJ news piece today:
[i]President Bush on Monday will tell the nation what he wants done with the budget next fiscal year. But the significance of his proposals and Congress’s response is dwarfed by one daunting fact: Some 84 cents of every dollar the government spends is essentially committed before he and the legislators even have at it.
…
Entitlements are the real elephant in the room. Formulas for spending on these social programs are set by law. Anyone eligible can collect. And the programs are growing far faster than either inflation or the economy, some 8% a year.
Medicare, at $391 billion this year, is close to equaling the entire domestic discretionary slice of the budget. Add in Social Security and the federal share of the state-run Medicaid program for the poor, and the big-three entitlements total $1.1 trillion for this year – $3 billion a day. This spending is the big issue in the federal budget, not post-Katrina rebuilding, headline-grabbing pork like Alaska’s ridiculed bridge to nowhere, or even the costly war in Iraq.
…
The president addressed entitlements in his State of the Union speech by calling for a bipartisan commission to offer solutions. “The rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away,” he said. But skeptics abound in both parties. What is missing, they say, is political will and trust. Even some supporters predict Mr. Bush will end up doing what he has vowed in nearly every stump speech that he won’t: Leave these problems to a future president and Congress. In that course, he would follow President Clinton, who also hoped to shore up the popular programs but who was defeated by political paralysis.
“This will not get done in this president’s term,” predicts Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, a longtime advocate of entitlements reform. Yet presidential leadership is essential, he adds, because “Congress is never going to be willing to deal with this, because the members are always up for re-election, every two years” in the case of the House.
Few dispute the staggering dimensions of the problem. Mr. Bush and analysts in and out of government use the same word to describe the fiscal trend: unsustainable.
Social Security spending now equals 4.2% of the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services the U.S. economy produces. Under current policy, it will rise to 6.4% in 2050, according to the CBO. Medicare and Medicaid combined now are about 4.5% of GDP. Fueled both by changing demographics and by rising health costs, the health programs are projected to balloon, by 2050, to as much as 22%. Yet the entire federal budget has averaged only about 20% of GDP since the end of World War II.
Moreover, federal taxes don’t cover even 20%. They average 18% of GDP – hence the persistent budget deficits.
…
By all accounts, a solution to the entitlements spending problem must be bipartisan so that the parties jointly convey the need for sacrifice and share political fallout. That was dramatized by Mr. Bush’s humiliation on Social Security: Democrats stood firm against his insistence on carving private accounts from a portion of the system’s revenue, and against his proposed reductions in future benefit promises. Republican leaders did nothing to advance his proposal, fearing political suicide.
More recently, these congressional leaders have struggled for months to muster Republican votes to pass a deficit-reduction bill lowering Medicare and Medicaid spending by almost $50 billion over 10 years. That would equal less than 0.006% of the projected spending on the two health-care programs over the coming decade.
Democrats, plus moderate Republicans such as Ohio’s Sen. George Voinovich, nearly derailed the legislation. They charged that the benefit reductions and higher costs for low-income families were “immoral,” given that the savings were intended to offset a pending five-year, $70 billion tax-cut bill.
Cost-saving options on Social Security could be simple and straightforward. They include slightly increasing retirement ages; reducing annual cost-of-living increases and the formula for computing retirees’ initial benefit; and expanding the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes so the biggest earners pay more. Neither party will do any of this without political cover.[/i]
I personally want out of this whole morass. Personal accounts are what I want for social security and health care. But they definitely need to do something on both fronts.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not sure why you think I need to respond in ways that make you personally happy. [/quote]
Then I’m not sure why you think my response (on this or any other thread) is supposed to make you personally happy.
I don’t like most of what you have to say politically and I’m going to keep posting that.
Don’t like it?
Suck it up “doctor.”
And good job in changing the subject, but not good enough.
My original post on this thread spoke of the glass (Iraq war) beig half full instead of half empty.
Your reponse to this in your typical fashion:
Hmm “cheerleader?” “pedictable?”
Not too bad but a bit confrontational, so don’t cry about it when others are confrontational in return. You and your buddy vroom are spilling estrgoen right through my computer screen.
Maybe you better lie down and put a compress on your abdomen.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A little more on entitlements.
It was so cute when Hillary stood up and gave a standing O when Bush referenced the fact that Congress hadn’t passed his Social Security reform plan.
But Bush pointed out immediately afterward that it still needs to be fixed, and boy is he correct. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest consumers of federal dollars - by a huge margin - and the Baby Boomers haven’t even retired yet.
From a page 1 WSJ news piece today:
[i]President Bush on Monday will tell the nation what he wants done with the budget next fiscal year. But the significance of his proposals and Congress’s response is dwarfed by one daunting fact: Some 84 cents of every dollar the government spends is essentially committed before he and the legislators even have at it.
…
Entitlements are the real elephant in the room. Formulas for spending on these social programs are set by law. Anyone eligible can collect. And the programs are growing far faster than either inflation or the economy, some 8% a year.
Medicare, at $391 billion this year, is close to equaling the entire domestic discretionary slice of the budget. Add in Social Security and the federal share of the state-run Medicaid program for the poor, and the big-three entitlements total $1.1 trillion for this year – $3 billion a day. This spending is the big issue in the federal budget, not post-Katrina rebuilding, headline-grabbing pork like Alaska’s ridiculed bridge to nowhere, or even the costly war in Iraq.
…
The president addressed entitlements in his State of the Union speech by calling for a bipartisan commission to offer solutions. “The rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away,” he said. But skeptics abound in both parties. What is missing, they say, is political will and trust. Even some supporters predict Mr. Bush will end up doing what he has vowed in nearly every stump speech that he won’t: Leave these problems to a future president and Congress. In that course, he would follow President Clinton, who also hoped to shore up the popular programs but who was defeated by political paralysis.
“This will not get done in this president’s term,” predicts Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, a longtime advocate of entitlements reform. Yet presidential leadership is essential, he adds, because “Congress is never going to be willing to deal with this, because the members are always up for re-election, every two years” in the case of the House.
Few dispute the staggering dimensions of the problem. Mr. Bush and analysts in and out of government use the same word to describe the fiscal trend: unsustainable.
Social Security spending now equals 4.2% of the gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services the U.S. economy produces. Under current policy, it will rise to 6.4% in 2050, according to the CBO. Medicare and Medicaid combined now are about 4.5% of GDP. Fueled both by changing demographics and by rising health costs, the health programs are projected to balloon, by 2050, to as much as 22%. Yet the entire federal budget has averaged only about 20% of GDP since the end of World War II.
Moreover, federal taxes don’t cover even 20%. They average 18% of GDP – hence the persistent budget deficits.
…
By all accounts, a solution to the entitlements spending problem must be bipartisan so that the parties jointly convey the need for sacrifice and share political fallout. That was dramatized by Mr. Bush’s humiliation on Social Security: Democrats stood firm against his insistence on carving private accounts from a portion of the system’s revenue, and against his proposed reductions in future benefit promises. Republican leaders did nothing to advance his proposal, fearing political suicide.
More recently, these congressional leaders have struggled for months to muster Republican votes to pass a deficit-reduction bill lowering Medicare and Medicaid spending by almost $50 billion over 10 years. That would equal less than 0.006% of the projected spending on the two health-care programs over the coming decade.
Democrats, plus moderate Republicans such as Ohio’s Sen. George Voinovich, nearly derailed the legislation. They charged that the benefit reductions and higher costs for low-income families were “immoral,” given that the savings were intended to offset a pending five-year, $70 billion tax-cut bill.
Cost-saving options on Social Security could be simple and straightforward. They include slightly increasing retirement ages; reducing annual cost-of-living increases and the formula for computing retirees’ initial benefit; and expanding the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes so the biggest earners pay more. Neither party will do any of this without political cover.[/i]
I personally want out of this whole morass. Personal accounts are what I want for social security and health care. But they definitely need to do something on both fronts.
[/quote]
Did you notice that Hillary seemed to be getting a lot of “face” time on the screen?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Did you notice that Hillary seemed to be getting a lot of “face” time on the screen?
[/quote]
Yeah, she did. Once when W. Bush mentioned that Clinton and W. Bush were two of G.W. Bush’s favorite baby boomers. The cameras panned to her and showed her gritting her teeth.
Then she got more when she did the standing O thing and applauded Congress’ killing off of any attempt to fix Social Security…
I can’t speak for the Prof, but it seems he and I both argue our beliefs pretty vehemently.
We also argue against emotion that is presented in place of reason and logic.
You are welcome to your opinions Zeb, but it would be nice to see you put more effort into supporting them than attacking the “character” of the people you argue with.
This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a heated argument, but perhaps you should at least address the underlying issues, and offer simple insults instead of mischaracterizations of another person’s views.
Also, I am well aware that nobody, including myself, has a perfect record in this respect.
Anyway, I’ve yet to see anyone argue against my thoughts on capping entitlement growth at a rate lower than actual inflation – that would be something worth discussing.
Boston,
If the thought police hadn’t of removed Cindy Sheehan, perhaps the camera would have spent less time on Clinton.
Anyway, from the point of view of the media, panning to select members of the audience, is the appropriate thing to do.
Don’t let the fact you dislike her or her viewpoints destroy your objectivity. Or maybe it is far too late for that?
[quote]vroom wrote:
We also argue against emotion that is presented in place of reason and logic.
You are welcome to your opinions Zeb, but it would be nice to see you put more effort into supporting them than attacking the “character” of the people you argue with.
[/quote]
Yes there is plenty of thought and no emotion at all behind such mischaracterizations as calling people a “cheerleader” and “pedictable.”
You are a riot vroom-you always will be.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t let the fact you dislike her or her viewpoints destroy your objectivity. Or maybe it is far too late for that?[/quote]
And don’t let the fact that you (might) love her steer you away from the fact that she probably DID get more time on TV than any other Senator. That too would be lacking objectivity.
You have to admit she was shown quite a lot. No?
[quote]And don’t let the fact that you (might) love her steer you away from the fact that she probably DID get more time on TV than any other Senator. That too would be lacking objectivity.
You have to admit she was shown quite a lot. No?[/quote]
Is she a mighty opposite, a potential candidate for the next presidential election? Does another democratic senator have her background and standing, such as it is? What else is news made of?
Why are you suggesting I’ve said she didn’t get a lot of time. Maybe if you didn’t make up meanings for what I say you wouldn’t have to disagree with it so strongly.
[quote]Yes there is plenty of thought and no emotion at all behind such mischaracterizations as calling people a “cheerleader” and “pedictable.”
You are a riot vroom-you always will be. [/quote]
A cheerleader is a euphamism for someone who does not support their viewpoint with their own thoughts.
Support your viewpoints with your OWN thoughts, instead of talking points, and you won’t be called a cheerleader.
As for predictable, this whole forum is predictable, I don’t think you have to be emotional to figure that one out.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe if you didn’t make up meanings for what I say you wouldn’t have to disagree with it so strongly.[/quote]
Saying “you (might) love her” and
“You have to admit she was shown quite a lot. No?”
Is strongly disagreeing?
Maybe if you didn’t think that I was always trying to “strongly disagree” with you you wouldn’t always be looking for it when it’s not there.
Just a thought.
Zeb,
What you missed is that I was not arguing that she didn’t get a lot of air time.
You are arguing against my post as if I did.
Pay attention man.
You never seem to really catch on to what people are saying around here… instead focusing in on things that are besides the point - often things you have simply made up on your own.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hmm “cheerleader?” “pedictable?”
Not too bad but a bit confrontational, so don’t cry about it when others are confrontational in return. You and your buddy vroom are spilling estrgoen right through my computer screen.
Maybe you better lie down and put a compress on your abdomen.
[/quote]
LOL. This coming from the guy who thought my comment was “outrageous” despite the fact that several others didn’t seem to think so? Yeah, but I am the one who need to take out the Maxi-pads?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes there is plenty of thought and no emotion at all behind such mischaracterizations as calling people a “cheerleader” and “pedictable.”
You are a riot vroom-you always will be.
A cheerleader is a euphamism for someone who does not support their viewpoint with their own thoughts.
Support your viewpoints with your OWN thoughts, instead of talking points, and you won’t be called a cheerleader.
As for predictable, this whole forum is predictable, I don’t think you have to be emotional to figure that one out.[/quote]
Well, this is what I said:
"How many lives has it saved, including the people Sadam would have killed for various reasons? How many more will it save by the spread of democracy throughout that region.
The glass is half full!"
While I admit it’s probably not original, what is “original” when you think about it?
And does that mean that you can never agree with anything stated publically unless you give it your own private spin?
I think most of what all of us have stated on this board has been stated by others somewhere, at some point. Are we all merely cheerleaders for our respective causes by your definition?
As far as the “predictable” comment that was directed at me, not the entire board.
Oh and since you are now the self appointed political forum monitor you must have missed this piece of “emotion” (you don’t like that remember? You want sound reasoning).
[quote]Professor X stated:
What a fucking hypocrite.[/quote] to Bigflamer.
I think between calling people ignorant and hypocrits professor x has many many times crossed the barrier into emotion laden attacks.
When will you be correcting this behavior? Or is it just those on the opposite side of the political fence that you are interested in critiquing?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
If the thought police hadn’t of removed Cindy Sheehan, perhaps the camera would have spent less time on Clinton.
Anyway, from the point of view of the media, panning to select members of the audience, is the appropriate thing to do.
Don’t let the fact you dislike her or her viewpoints destroy your objectivity. Or maybe it is far too late for that?[/quote]
What are you talking about?
The cameras panned to her on two “political” moments - one in which her husband was mentioned, and one she manufactured with her little standing O. Both were very appropriate shots. I was just describing them.
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.
I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!
I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.
The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?
So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.
I’m embarrased.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hmm “cheerleader?” “pedictable?”
Not too bad but a bit confrontational, so don’t cry about it when others are confrontational in return. You and your buddy vroom are spilling estrgoen right through my computer screen.
Maybe you better lie down and put a compress on your abdomen.
LOL. This coming from the guy who thought my comment was “outrageous” despite the fact that several others didn’t seem to think so? Yeah, but I am the one who need to take out the Maxi-pads?[/quote]
You missed the point again…darn it.
You first questioned my own originality by calling me a “cheerleader” and “predictable.”
You began the degradation of this thread as you have done many times in the past on other threads.
The reason? By your own admission:
Arrogant: “Showing an unrealistic sense of superiority over others”
Yea…I have to agree with that!
You see, when you display this admitted arrogance that you have, you tend to get others on this board just a bit riled in your direction.
Okay?