Then the baseline would have been equivalent developed countries like Europe (which he did mention, later), Canada, Japan… The only reason to bring a third-tier developing country like mine into it is for the ad hominem value. So, tu quoque it is.
No, Bush is a horrible President for a host of reasons. You can do a search to see just what I’ve excoriated Bush for over the years; you’ll notice that his having increased the deficit is way down on that list.
And even then, there’s a clear difference: Bush increased the deficit for things that added no value to America at large. The two big Bush contributions to the national debt are the tax cuts and the war. The rich got huge tax cuts, but the average family is worse off now than when he took office. And the war, of course, has only robbed America of value, ultimately adding trillions to the national debt while killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and exiling millions more, and leaving our military worn down and worn out.
I have no problem with deficit spending that adds substantial value to America. if universal health care requires a bit of borrowing, in the long run it’s a positive investment: we’ll have a healthier, more productive workforce, and Americans will have an improved quality of life.
I hate to assume what some people think needs to be proven. As an American, I would say yes, this is incredibly self-evident.
IOKIADDI, as usual.
So I take it that you agree that increasing the deficit by $623 billion a year to fund a national service corps is a good thing. Then the same questions apply - do you believe that we can increase the national debt by that amount every year in perpetuity? If not, how are we going to pay for it?
Regards,
Shodan
All well and good, but I believe we’re talking about the here and now. For the foreseeable future in the US, there will be someone in power.
Again, I’m talking about policy recommendations for the US as it exists now and for the foreseeable future.
Then we are in agreement (about this anyway…I suppose you figure that if you keep hand waving and saying ad hominem and tu quoque you will eventually get some traction somehow). I have no problem (as long as we aren’t using government funds) with teaching kids that volunteer work is fine, with showing them what volunteer opportunities are out there and then leaving it up to them. Hell, if they want to volunteer for ‘civil service’…well, that’s their lookout. I have no real issue with any of that.
But that’s not exactly what we are talking about here, and that’s not the impression I’m getting from Obama’s statements on this subject.
-XT
Other than the government funds caveat, I think it’s exactly what Obama’s statements were meaning. It all comes down to difference of interpretation on what he plans. I think he means to inspire young people to volunteer in their communities, and fund those communities to enable that volunterism. Sam Stone thinks he’s getting ready to send them to chain gangs. I’d bet good money
my interpretation is closer, though.
Since you say you didn’t mean the country comparison as a TQ, I’ll concede. I’m feeling a lot less like making a fuss over it, and ultimately, it was your statement, so your interpretation goes.
P.S. Your PMs are full.
Has anyone brought up that “just as well-funded” does not necessarily mean “funded by just as much money”? Am I alone in this?
I read this as “given as much funding priority”, not “given as much money”. Maybe that will freak you out as well. But it’s clear that most of the time, the military gets what it wants, and that means that it is “well-funded”.
Who knows how my bias is affecting this. Personally, I think reading this as “I’m going to give my civillian security force as much money as the military” is a blunt misapprehension of his intent.
The thread had veered from the here and now to abstract ideology by that time.
As to the here and now? If I were American, I’d rather vote for the guy who’d use financial incentives encourage juveniles to sweep the streets than the guy fixing to send them to die in Iran (but won’t give them additional financial incentive for that on their first tour).
Well, also leaving the government funding caveat aside I have no problem with programs to teach young people the joys of volunteerism. I think your strawman of Sam’s position does you no justice…and I also think that your interpretation of Obama’s position is in error, though I concede that he could have been more clear on things, so left the door open to HAVE to interpret his plans.
I think that when the dust settles over this Obama will be back peddling for all he’s worth as I don’t see his plans flying here in the US with the majority of people.
Thanks for the tip! I’ve cleaned them out now…didn’t even realize it was full (or that they only allowed 50 messages in archive). And thanks for your other comment…I didn’t know and will strive not to say that anymore.
-XT
Remember “AMERICORPS”-in the Orwellian world of Bill Clinton, Americorps was the perfect hack organization-"paid volunteers’-with big paying managerial jobs for political cronies!I fera this is waht Obama wanst to set up-a way of rewarding all his supporteds! 
Well, yeah, given the firestorm of controversy this has ignited! You can hardly tune to any news channel without noticing how carefully they avoid mentioning it. If one didn’t know better, one might imagine that hardly anyone cares.
shrug Not like this would be the first time a topic stirred excitement on this board while being met with a general yawn by the public at large.
-XT
It’s no strawman, as you can see by the fact that Captain Amazing promptly followed up with a declaration that that the government has no business teaching science and math.
Also, you’re aware that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right?
Also, you’re aware that “tu quoque” doesn’t just mean “you did it too” but more generally “you’re acting in a manner inconsistent with your stated position”, right?
I think that until you gain a fuller grasp of these terms, you’d be better off not using them at all.
Thank you for your thoughts. I’ll file them where they deserve to be…
-XT
No. If a Democrat takes us to war against a country that doesn’t represent a meaningful threat, if a Democrat authorizes torture, if a Democrat turns the DoJ into a banana-republic-style prosecute-your-opponents agency, if a Democrat tramples on the Fourth Amendment, then I’d be pissed at that Democrat. In fact, I’m pissed at the Democrats (and one former Dem) who played a role in these things.
No, I don’t. And if you can prove that Obama is sticking to a position of wanting to spend that much money on national service programs (as opposed to being some one-off misspeaking), then I’ll join you in condemning Obama for such a ridiculous idea.
Until then: have some fire, scarecrow.
Cite?
Well, that’s what he said. I realize he would like to stuff this down the memory hole, but that doesn’t work for everyone.
But if you are going to assume that he didn’t really mean any monumentally stupid idea that he floated, then he must not mean anything he has said since he declared as a candidate.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s ridiculous. If Americans were “unique in the belief that social services should be private,” why does the United States have such massive government bureaucracy dedicated to the delivery of social services? The simple facts demonstrate that apparently Americans believe quite the opposite.
Then you agree he’s not sticking to that position. Thanks for conceding your mistake gracefully.
John McCain either believes that there is an Iraq-Pakistan border, or he must not mean anything he’s said since he declared as a candidate. 