Eating the rich is an exercise in futility.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Proof that we have an ENTITLEMENT SPENDING problem, not a TAX REVENUE problem.

Here's a video for your convenience:

And here's the source information from the video:

iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

The most glaring point in my opinion is made at ~5:16 in the video. Completely defunding both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would only save us enough money to pay for one month out of our current budget. So much for the well-worn liberal claim that national defense spending due to the wars is responsible for the entirety of the deficit.

Edited April 7, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[NeuroTypical]

Eat the rich is a brilliant video that helps put things into perspective and makes a very difficult-to-counter point. Yeah, taking all the money from the rich won't solve the problem of our huge federal deficits and too-large govt budgets.

[please note - we must not discuss people running for political office in this thread.]

[Elphaba]

The most important point in my opinion is made at ~5:16 in the video. Completely defunding both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would only save us enough money to pay for one month out of our current budget. So much for the well-worn liberal claim that national defense spending due to the wars is responsible for the entirety of the deficit.

"Well-worn?" I'm a liberal who reads a fair amount of both liberal and non publications, and I've never seen any liberal say that.

I think what is well-worn is the continued practice of claiming the other party did or said something stupid just to make it look bad with little concern for the truth. Both parties are guilty of this, and it seems to be getting worse.

Elphaba

[PrinceofLight2000]

Eat the rich is a brilliant video that helps put things into perspective and makes a very difficult-to-counter point. Yeah, taking all the money from the rich won't solve the problem of our huge federal deficits and too-large govt budgets.

[please note - we must not discuss people running for political office in this thread.]

Let me specify a little more. I think this is an important issue and I don't want this thread to be locked because of inappropriate comments.

DO NOT argue about party platforms or actions. Argue ideological points instead.

DO NOT make any comment regarding any known official candidates for political office; this includes President Obama.

[Elphaba]

So much for the well-worn liberal claim that national defense spending due to the wars is responsible for the entirety of the deficit.

"Well-worn"? I'm a liberal and I stay fairly well informed, and I've never heard any liberal claim that the wars are entirely responsible for the deficit.

I don't deny it might have been said. But it's never been said enough to warrant your "well-worn" claim.

Elphaba

[PrinceofLight2000]

"Well-worn"? I'm a liberal and I stay fairly well informed, and I've never heard any liberal claim that the wars are entirely responsible for the deficit.

I don't deny it might have been said. But it's never been said enough to warrant your "well-worn" claim.

Elphaba

I can only speak for myself, but I hear it very often.

EDIT: Oh no... 666 posts... FASTEST POST EVER TIME.

Edited April 7, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Elphaba]

I can only speak for myself, but I hear it very often.

Where?

Elphaba

[PrinceofLight2000]

Where?

Elphaba

Websites I frequent, irl interaction... Not here though.

[Dravin]

I can only speak for myself, but I hear it very often.

EDIT: Oh no... 666 posts... FASTEST POST EVER TIME.

/me ponders if hard deleted posts would reduce Prince's post count...

[PrinceofLight2000]

/me ponders if hard deleted posts would reduce Prince's post count...

You're either very nice or very evil. As usual, I can't tell which.

[Dravin]

You're either very nice or very evil. As usual, I can't tell which.

Very nicely evil?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Very nicely evil?

Cool horns, bro.

[Elphaba]

Websites I frequent, irl interaction... Not here though.

What websites?

Elphaba

[PrinceofLight2000]

What websites?

Elphaba

Ones with lots of college students and/or teenagers. The one I use most is absolutepunk.

[Matthew0059]

Elphaba-

Even if the "well-worn" adjective was a poor choice, the premise of the thread still holds true. And it HAS been said. I see it often enough as a conservative to say, off the cuff, that it is "well-worn", but I probably don't hear it often at all. It's an argument that does stand out because it's usually ideologically charged, attached to the statement that the wars are Bush's and, therefore, conservatism's. Hence, the right is to blame for the budget problems.

[Guest]

Where?

Elphaba

This was more prominent back in the Reagan years and the post-9/11 months leading to the general elections. It was used often enough as to make "a war we can't afford" a popular kool-aid buzz phrase.

Edited April 9, 2011 by anatess

[Elphaba]

Even if the "well-worn" adjective was a poor choice, the premise of the thread still holds true. And it HAS been said. I see it often enough as a conservative to say, off the cuff, that it is "well-worn", but I probably don't hear it often at all.

What can I say? I have never heard any liberal claim the wars are entirely responsible for the deficit, and I read a lot of political blogs, both liberal and conservative. Additionally, I searched a number of different word combinations, and did find a few conservatives claim liberals said this, but could not find one instance of a liberal actually saying it.

That does not convince me it's never been said. I am hardly an expert at what words make an effective search and perhaps I didn't use them. I don't doubt both you and PoL have seen it said. But I am not convinced enough liberals have said it to warrant "well-worn."

If PoL had used "well-worn" to describe many liberal's claims that the wars, Bush's tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription drug plan are entirely responsible for the deficit, then I would agree with him. Far too many liberals have said that with no regard to Obama's contribution. But I have never seen a liberal say only the wars are responsible for the deficit in its entirety.

It's an argument that does stand out because it's usually ideologically charged, attached to the statement that the wars are Bush's and, therefore, conservatism's. Hence, the right is to blame for the budget problems.

While I haven't seen the claim that the wars are responsible for the deficit, I agree with you completely that those liberals who claim Bush, and thus the right, is entirely responsible for the deficit are motivated by ideology. However, if we're going to be pointing out when someone's claims are ideologically charged, I think the author of PoL‘s video needs to be included as guilty of the same.

Most often when someone makes ridiculous, all-or-nothing statements like: “Many of us on the right knows that the left only wins when it can find only one sob story and sell that,” that speaker’s motives are ideologically charged. People who say that kind of nonsense are usually not interested in persuading people to their points of view. They’re usually only interested in entertaining those who already share their ideology.

Both sides of the spectrum have pundits guilty of this. From the left, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz come to mind. From the right Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and this Mr. Whittle, fit the bill.

If people are truly interested in persuading me that their facts are accurate, they don’t make rude fat jokes to dismiss someone‘s position, they don’t disparage the group I belong to, and they don’t call American citizens who genuinely disagree with them, and who exercised their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of assembly the pejorative “mobs."

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him targeting the audience that agrees with him ideologically. I am saying that when someone's ideology is so obviously a motivation, it's probable that his/her facts are interpreted through that ideology, and thus, I would never consider it as "proof" of anything, which is what PoL presented it as.

Elphaba

[NeuroTypical]

Elphaba is right. I've heard all sorts of people from all over the political spectrum grousing about the cost of wars, and I've heard people talking about how we could better use those funds. But not in the blanket terms being argued about here.

The video, however, is still brilliant. And it does very well counter Michael Moore's claim shown at the beginning of the video. It also helps put into perspective of relative sizes of sources of wealth and sources of debt.

[PrinceofLight2000]

While I haven't seen the claim that the wars are responsible for the deficit, I agree with you completely that those liberals who claim Bush, and thus the right, is entirely responsible for the deficit are motivated by ideology. However, if we're going to be pointing out when someone's claims are ideologically charged, I think the author of PoL‘s video needs to be included as guilty of the same.

Most often when someone makes ridiculous, all-or-nothing statements like: “Many of us on the right knows that the left only wins when it can find only one sob story and sell that,” that speaker’s motives are ideologically charged. People who say that kind of nonsense are usually not interested in persuading people to their points of view. They’re usually only interested in entertaining those who already share their ideology.

Both sides of the spectrum have pundits guilty of this. From the left, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz come to mind. From the right Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and this Mr. Whittle, fit the bill.

If people are truly interested in persuading me that their facts are accurate, they don’t make rude fat jokes to dismiss someone‘s position, they don’t disparage the group I belong to, and they don’t call American citizens who genuinely disagree with them, and who exercised their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of assembly the pejorative “mobs."

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him targeting the audience that agrees with him ideologically. I am saying that when someone's ideology is so obviously a motivation, it's probable that his/her facts are interpreted through that ideology, and thus, I would never consider it as "proof" of anything, which is what PoL presented it as.

Elphaba

If anything, making jokes is entertainment motivation, not ideological motivation. Demonization and mockery aren't key tenets in either conservative or liberal thought. The video is meant to be an entertaining presentation of what the data showed. I figured the jokes would ruffle some feathers, but both the video and the website made important points that couldn't be ignored. The point of this thread was to set aside the entertainment factor and look at the data. Had I been able to find similarly presented points without the entertainment factor, I would have posted that first.

The point is, regardless of whether or not you like Whittle's opinions on Michael Moore and the Wisconsin protesters, you can't ignore the data. Set aside the nit-picking and focus on the greater point. I should have posted something like this in the OP, but I figured what was supposed to be taken from the information was as clear as day.

I've been distressed by the lack of civility from commentators on both sides. Does that mean we should ignore all the research, information, and perspective about the issues of our day that they present? I don't think so.

Edited April 9, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Gretchen]

Has anyone seen I.O.U.S.A? It is a documentary that shows that America's financial future is not so bright. Here's a link for part of it, click around to find the rest:

[PrinceofLight2000]

Has anyone seen I.O.U.S.A? It is a documentary that shows that America's financial future is not so bright. Here's a link for part of it, click around to find the rest:

I haven't, thanks!

[Blackmarch]

Proof that we have an ENTITLEMENT SPENDING problem, not a TAX REVENUE problem.

Here's a video for your convenience:

And here's the source information from the video:

iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

The most glaring point in my opinion is made at ~5:16 in the video. Completely defunding both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would only save us enough money to pay for one month out of our current budget. So much for the well-worn liberal claim that national defense spending due to the wars is responsible for the entirety of the deficit.

Or any one program. (well maybe medicare in the future will be overwhelmingly large, in which case totally defunding it would do something significant..)

[PrinceofLight2000]

Or any one program. (well maybe medicare in the future will be overwhelmingly large, in which case totally defunding it would do something significant..)

Defense spending consists of numerous programs because it's a budget.

[Blackmarch]

Defense spending consists of numerous programs because it's a budget.

I meant as a whole, sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Elphaba]

If anything, making jokes is entertainment motivation, not ideological motivation.

Sometimes they’re both, as is true in Whittle’s video.

Demonization and mockery aren't key tenets in either conservative or liberal thought.

I never said they were. But whenever they are present to the degree they are in Whittle's video, they are red flags that a person's political beliefs are fashioned, to an extreme, by his/her ideology, and whenever this is the case, his/her interpretation of the data should be suspect.

The video is meant to be an entertaining presentation of what the data showed.

And the way he chose to “entertain” speaks volumes as to ideology.

I figured the jokes would ruffle some feathers, but both the video and the website made important points that couldn't be ignored.

Okay, I see I’m not being clear. Whittle’s jokes are not the problem. It’s YOUR choice to present Whittle to me as, literally, “proof” of something that is the problem.

Whittle seriously mocks and belittles liberals, something conservatives not ideologically motivated generally do. (ETA: I meant this to read "something conservatives not ideologically motivated generally DO NOT do.) So, I immediately realize he is probably an ideologue. Given ideologues interpret data through the lense of their ideology, and thus are rarely one-hundred-percent accurate, I am immediately suspicious of Whittle‘s interpretations. Yet, you presented it to me, as “proof” of something, and expect me to completely ignore he is an ideologue. That’s absurd.

Look at it this way: I present to you, as “proof” of something, a video by Victor Victorville wherein he presents his interpretation of the data, but also says: “I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. And every time a conservative tells you Obama is lying s/he‘s the one whose really the liar because Obama never lies.” Are you going to tell me you’d seriously consider Victorville's data and interpretations without any suspicion of their accuracy whatsoever?

Of course you wouldn’t, nor should you. And whose fault would that be? Victorville’s? Yours? No. It would be mine for choosing that as my “proof” to you, given his mockery of Bush and conservatives so obviously betrays his ideology. In fact, Victorville could be 100 percent accurate, but I would never, ever expect you to consider it such given he’s betrayed what his ideology is.

You’ve done exactly the same thing by presenting Whittle to me as “proof” of something. So, barring me spending countless hours trying to verify which parts are, and are not, accurate, which I’m not willing to do, I have no way of knowing which is which.

That’s your job. So, if you want to offer me “proof” of something, you should never present me with a source that is so blatantly ideological, just as I would never present you a Michael Moore-type source as “proof” of something, even if I believed every single word he said in that particular piece were accurate. You would laugh me out of the room, and rightly so.

Does that mean we should ignore all the research, information, and perspective about the issues of our day that they present? I don't think so.

I do. You ignore at least some of “all the research, information and perspective” every single day, particularly if conclusions are reached that you disagree with. It’s impossible not to. You choose the interpretation to take seriously based on your belief system. As do I. Does that mean you always choose the interpretation that is correct? Of course not. Nor do I.

And that’s precisely why I reject Whittle’s interpretations. It’s simply too hard to discover all the interpretations of data out there that are accurate, so I take clues that give me reason to suspect a person’s interpretation very seriously.

Had I been able to find similarly presented points without the entertainment factor, I would have posted that first.

And that’s the bottom line. If you couldn’t find anything that supports Whittle’s conclusions from a more reliable source, why in the world do you expect me to consider him as "proof" of anything?

Elphaba

Edited April 19, 2011 by Elphaba