This is the economy conservatives want

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby Crockett » Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:22 pm

David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?


Then we should default and the GOP should admit that's their plan. Instead we print. And screw the poorest.

If we're going to try to inflate our way out of this we should at least tax the wealthiest too.

acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby acereraser » Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:32 pm

David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?


Why would you expect anyone to answer your questions when you refuse to do the same?

David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor
Contact:

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby David Blaska » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:06 pm

acereraser wrote:
David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?


[Why would you expect anyone to answer your questions when you refuse to do the same?


I responded 11 times to that thread. If you want to disagree with those answers I can't stop you. But why lie about it? (I expect an answer, eraser.)

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:15 pm

David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?
GOP Set to Triple Filibuster Record
Mar 1, 2010
How bad is GOP obstructionism in the Senate? Republican senators are on pace to more than triple the previous record for uses of a filibuster in a Congress. In 2009, there were a record 112 cloture votes (the number of cloture votes is how you measure the use of filibusters). So far in 2010, there have already been more than 40 cloture votes. The previous record was in 1995-1996, when the Republican-controlled Senate required 50 cloture votes.
1/3rd of the stimulus package was a tax cut. I'm amazed that you'd admit that tax cuts do not work, Dave.

Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby Stella_Guru » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:19 pm

Crockett wrote: Instead we print. And screw the poorest.

Fuck 'em and feed 'em beans. Printing more money is a great way for a weak President to say yes to everyone, and use inflation as a convenient gimmick for devaluing his impossible campaign promises.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:20 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Obama has made Bush look like a piker in the spending department. It's gotten us nowhere except further in debt. And you want the American people to throw more good money after bad? How much is enough?

And remember, Dear Leader granted a payroll tax holiday, so he cut taxes also (along with extending the Bush "tax cuts").
Kind of a mind blowing comment, but regular GOP fabricated talking point.

Bush passed $1.4 trillion in deficit spending for the fiscal year 2009. 45% of last years deficit spending came from Bush programs and mistakes, and don't forget the loss in tax revenue from 9 million Americans out of work because Bush refused to regulate the banks when they saw this crisis coming in 2005.

Granted, Obama's like a band aid on an arterial cut, but no one can hold a candle to Bush for screwing up the economy and running up the debt.

acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby acereraser » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:31 pm

David Blaska wrote:
acereraser wrote:
David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?


[Why would you expect anyone to answer your questions when you refuse to do the same?


I responded 11 times to that thread. If you want to disagree with those answers I can't stop you. But why lie about it? (I expect an answer, eraser.)


You didn't even tackle my favorite question from kurt_w, "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?", but that was probably because you stopped posting on page three of the seven page thread.

Here was the last list compiled by ilikebeans:

Q1: What studies/statistics show that, for the other six states with strict photo voter ID laws, fraudulent voting at the ballot box decreased as a direct result of the law?

David Blaska wrote:Placing a mark on drivers licenses denoting felon is under consideration.


Q2: What is your source on this?
Q3: Assuming this plan passes, how would the law prevent felons from voting if they presented an ID other than their driver's license?

David Blaska wrote:As to the # of prosecutions: proving an intent and getting a conviction is a difficult and time-consuming proposition. Prevention is much more cost-effective.


Q4: Please cite numbers to show that prosecuting the current low numbers of fraudulent voters (11 charged in 2010) is more expensive to state taxpayers than the estimated $6 million this year and $4 million/year after this law will cost.

Optional question that requires no research at all!

Q5: Mr. Blaska, what is your opinion of the campaigns by Americans for Prosperity and Wisconsin Family Action to send absentee ballots with false submission dates and return addresses to AFP to solidly Democratic voting blocs?

Another question that requires no research at all! (thanks to acereraser for the link):

Q6: Mr. Blaska, please comment on the following quote by Paul Weyrich, noted conservative and founder of The Heritage Foundation and ALEC, among many others:

"I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."



I could be wrong, but I think most of it boils down to why you think the cost to implement the Voter ID law, as well as the roadblocks to a more comprehensive democracy, are justified when the fact is, the type of fraud the law will hope to eliminate accounts for about 44 millionths of one percent of the vote.

This was your last real answer, the rest were lame quips:

Sorry, Beans. I'm not going to do your leg work for you. The bill is passed; you lost.


If that is the best you can do to explain your position, fine, just say so, and people will probably stop expecting so much of you, just like with Ned Flanders.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:33 pm

and don't forget the massive interest on the debt ever since Reaganomics quintupled it in 12 years...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... xpense.htm

2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71
1988 $214,145,028,847.73
Roughly $7.65 trillion in interest on the debt.

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3197
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby ilikebeans » Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:38 pm

David Blaska wrote:I responded 11 times to that thread. If you want to disagree with those answers I can't stop you. But why lie about it?

You made some assertions, and posted sources to back them up. I showed how all of those sources were either blatantly biased, plain wrong, or both. You then proceeded to make a few other factual claims without backing them up. I have continued to ask for you to back them up.

Are you ready yet to back them up?

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby Detritus » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:19 pm

Come on, guys, give it up. Asking Blaska to stop lying and answer legitimate questions with legitimate answers is like asking John Wayne Gacy to stop painting pictures of sad clowns. Very much like it, now that I think about it.

David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor
Contact:

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby David Blaska » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:01 pm

Citing Columbia University studies apparently is not enough. Hey, no one can force you to agree with facts you don't like. You want to believe Voter I.D. reduces turnout despite all the statistics, be my guest. That doesn't make you a liar; just a true believer -- and a thread hijacker.

acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby acereraser » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:01 pm

David Blaska wrote:Citing Columbia University studies apparently is not enough. Hey, no one can force you to agree with facts you don't like. You want to believe Voter I.D. reduces turnout despite all the statistics, be my guest. That doesn't make you a liar; just a true believer -- and a thread hijacker.


No, citing Columbia University studies would be enough, if they actually backed up your claim. As ilikebeans already did for you in the unanswered questions thread, I will quote to you from the abstract of the Columbia study you cited:

Stimulated by the pressing policy debate, recent scientific research on the turnout question is largely inconclusive: different datasets, measurement rules and statistical models produce different and contradictory findings.
...
Our findings suggest that the data are not up to
the task of making a compelling statistical argument.


They didn't say there was no evidence of reduced turnout, they said the existing research designs and statistical tools used to measure the effect of Voter ID laws are not delicate enough to produce unequivocal support for either side of the argument. To simplify, the picture is too blurry.

Whether or not you or I like these facts is immaterial, the point is that you are reading into this study something they are not saying. They did not disprove that Voter ID suppresses the vote, nor did they prove it. You ignored when ilikebeans pointed this out to you before, and that is why the unanswered question thread continued.

So, are you a Voter ID zealot, or what? And while you're at it, how about the Weyrich quote?

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3197
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: This is the economy conservatives want

Postby ilikebeans » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:17 am

Thank you for responding, Mr. Blaska.

David Blaska wrote:Citing Columbia University studies apparently is not enough.

No, it is not.

I've already addressed this here and here (and acereraser also just explained to you yet again). Allow me to point out that this is well before you decided to stop replying to that thread.

David Blaska wrote:Hey, no one can force you to agree with facts you don't like. You want to believe Voter I.D. reduces turnout despite all the statistics, be my guest.

Annnnnnnnnd you continue to ignore the Brown University study, which I address in the original thread here.

David Blaska wrote:That doesn't make you a liar; just a true believer

When it comes to public policy, I believe in unbiased facts and scientific studies, Mr. Blaska. What do you believe in?

David Blaska wrote:and a thread hijacker

I assume, then, that you'll be more than happy to address these questions in the original thread, which I've bumped into main page visibility only 10 times since August 2nd.

Allow me to link to the end of the thread for you.

I await your supporting citations (and opinions! ...with which you are usually quite prolific) in that thread, Mr. Blaska, to avoid further pollution of this thread.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], buckyor, donges, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests