You may have noticed I’ve been a little busy. I also seem to recall saying that if you wanted to debate it, you should open a thread. I’ll be happy to join in. I gave you a short synopsis of my reasons. Rest assured, I can back them up.
My uninformed opinion? On what do you base that? Open a thread, sparky. In Great Debates, please. I’m getting tired of the vitriol.
Except it wasn’t made up. It just starts with some assumptions that are a little different than Obama’s. i.e. the economy won’t be growing by 3.6% next year, or 4% the year after, or 4.6% the year after that. The White House’s estimates are rosier than anyone else’s, including the Congressional Budget Office. He’s also assuming something like 60 billion a year from Cap and Trade, and that’s already looking like it’s going to be a tough sell. He also plans to cut agriculture subsidies, and the opposition to that is also lining up and ready to fight. In addition, he includes no additional budget for Afghanistan, and yet most observers think that war is going to get bigger before it gets smaller.
I could go on. There are a number of things in the budget that are very iffy, and a lot of rosy assumptions. But as I said, open a thread and we can debate it.
I’ll be damned if I’m going to and spend a couple of hours sifting through old threads so I can cite myself. Go look it up yourself if you care so much. I actually don’t give a tinker’s damn what you think about it, either.
People like you and Hentor just can’t accept that there might be another point of view that has legitimacy. So if I point to a study done by anyone who can be vaguely associated with the right, it’s automatically either lies or ‘cherry picking’. Of course, when lefties on this board quote Paul Krugman or MoveOn or FAIR or any number of left-leaning people, organizations, or think tanks, it’s just reality, unassailable and unimpeachable, and a cite to one of them is automatically considered debate-ending by all fair-minded people.
In point of fact, I’m usually outnumbered about 10-1 in these debates, and there aren’t enough free hours in the day for me to respond to every comment, question, or snark. Sometimes I just get tired after answer two or three of them and decide I’m done for the day. And that’s the way it’s going to remain, because I have a job, and a family, and there aren’t enough hours in the day.
I will admit there have been times where a good argument has been posted, and I’ve had to stop and think about it, and do more reading, and time passes and I lose interest or the thread dies and it gets dropped. But it’s not intentional.
And I’ll bet I acknowledge good arguments on the other side more than all but a few posters on this board. I’ll gladly say, “That’s a very fair point, and it strengthens your argument” when I think that’s true.
But I know you’re not going to believe that, because you’re utterly convinced of what I am and you’re just not going to see the evidence to the contrary. For some reason, you spend a lot of time hating on me. But I’m okay with that. Everyone’s got to have a hobby.
Folks, in recalling this festering boil of an issue, we’ve been treated to a CURRENT wonderful example of Sam’s unconscionably dishonest, as Hellestal aptly described it, posting style. It’s tricky, but you have to remember what Sam’s original claim was: Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years. If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second. He wants to forget that, so he outright says that his claim was about Bush versus Clinton. It wasn’t. This is deceitful.
Here, Sam has cherry picked a comment from the past in a very deceitful fashion. It’s easy to resolve, because I resolved it in 2004:
Back then, it was not easy to find a summary of NASA funding over time, and my initial investigation into Sam’s claim led me to what turned out to be NASA R&D numbers, rather than their whole budget. This, however, is a good example of what an honest and reasonable person does when confronted with an error. He apologizes for having erred.
Was that his claim? Or was it: “Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years. If you do, you’ll notice two times when it received larger than average budget increases - during the first Bush administration, and during the second.” I don’t care how the Bushes compared to Clinton, because that wasn’t his assertion.
I leave this in for context given than I addressed this point in 2004, but Sam has deceitfully left that out for you. Also, note that despite the fact that we can see exactly what he said in the original thread, he pretends it wasn’t.
Here’s some of that smug sanctimony that Mr. Svinlesha described.
I recall it because it’s a great example of how deceitful and nasty you really are. It encapsulates everything: A false claim either pulled out of your ass or pulled out of someone else’s ass, a series of moving goalposts, smug pronouncements, and most importantly, even after five years, no simple resolution like: “Hey, oops, it turns out that the Bushes don’t really stand out as the two times that the NASA budget was increased over the past 30 years. I’m sorry.” Can you either back up your assertion, which I’ve dutifully quoted repeatedly, or can you say something like that?
Hentor, I notice you’ve seem to have dropped the second assertion of Sam’s that you were contesting, that NASA funding increased during Bush I, eroded under Clinton, and then increased again under Bush II.
I showed the nominal numbers. It’s also true for adjusted numbers. Are you willing to admit that Sam was right, and you were wrong on that specific point?
No, I haven’t dropped it at all. First, he never made the assertion you are suggesting he did. Please reread his assertions:
Now, point to the part that says: “NASA funding increased during Bush I, eroded under Clinton, and then increased again under Bush II.” Please, before you do anything else, either point to this assertion in Sam’s original post, or understand the nature of what he actually claimed.
So, one of the assertions is “constant budget erosions” under Clinton. I look at the numbers and I see consistent funding across time. In constant dollars, he ended up at 0% average annual change. In nominal dollars, a 4% decrease over 8 years.
However, that debate turns on what “constant erosions means.” In the context of what Sam originally wrote, it sounds pretty devastating (although as one other poster observed to him at the time, are “Faster, Better, Cheaper” supposed to be bad goals? Should we shoot for slower, worse and more expensive?"). If it was only a semantic quarrel over this one claim about “erosion”, I wouldn’t have very much interest in it at all, because a nibbling reduction over time, from one perspective, might be described as erosion, even if there was actually no change in constant dollars.
So, he’s not right on either, and has no support whatsoever for the claim that the two Bushes. And that was the one he haughtily demanded that we examine. “Go back and look at NASA funding in the last 30 years.” I did, and what he said would be there wasn’t there. Are you able to acknowledge that?
FWIW, taking into account the fact that Clinton had lots of money to play with while both Bushes were entering (or causing, depending on who you believe) recessions, I think the different in NASA funding is significant.
That said, I’d be extremely curious to see how much of Bush II’s NASA funding went to his stupid missile defense program.
GHW Bush entered during a recession? Really? I thought it was the other way around.
And you’re right, prevailing economic context is important. Clinton managed to move us from the recession of the early 1990s to a balanced federal budget by the end of his term in office, while maintaining a generally consistent level of funding for NASA over that time.
That said, none of this is relevant to the specific claims made by Sam, and particularly the one he suggested that we all go and look up.
I said “were entering” recessions, not “took office during” recessions. Bush can hardly be blamed for the post-9/11 economic meltdown, though I’ll happily blame him for the current one.
Anyway, I make no judgment as to whether increasing NASA funding in a recession is a good thing; I’m merely pointing out that the fact that the Bushes did increase funding has some added weight given the financial context of the time.
Whether you choose to take that as evidence that Bush I & II were staunch supporters of our nation’s greatest institution or that they are irresponsible stewards of the Treasury is up to you.
In these sorts of discussions, it is usually incumbent upon the person making the claim to supply the evidence supporting it. But then again, you know this. Your response here is tantamount to a capitulation. Come on – you mean you can’t even locate the thread you started, in which you conceded you were wrong on the issue of gay marriage?
I’m actually going to stop here for a minute and say thanks. At least you directed your response to me specifically, instead of your usual “You liberals just can’t accept…”
Yet again this tiresome canard, and yet another false characterization. It just never ends with you, does it, Sammy? And naturally, the fallback to “lefties” in general again: “when lefties on this board…”
I concede that I automatically consider assertions made by people like Sean Hannity, Neal Cavuto, Bill O’Reilly, etc, to be false, unless proven otherwise. There’s a reason for that. I also freely concede that the economic opinions of Krugman carry a lot of water with me. There’s a reason for that too; it has to do with the fact that over time some sources of information have proven to be reliable and reality-based, while others have not.
Having said that, I certainly don’t believe Krugman et. al. is always, invariably right. Nobody’s perfect. I’ve never considered a quote from FAIR, MoveOn, or Krugman to be the end of discussion, period. You know this. Claiming otherwise is typical of your basic dishonesty on these boards.
Of course, we all have our constraints. It would be one thing if you occasionally dropped a certain thread or train of thought in responding to a post. What I’m accusing you of is intentionally and egregiously choosing to respond to arguments you consider “low hanging fruit,” while studiously avoiding logical arguments and matters of fact that strongly gainsay your views, in order to channel the debate in a direction you hope will prove more favorable to your side of the issue.
There was a point in time when I both liked you and respected you. I have even came to your defense on occasion when you set upon by other posters, even though I also thought you were being extremely stiff-necked. You had to work very hard, Sammy, to piss that friendship and respect away. But by God, you were certainly up to the task.
Oh, I forgot: also wanted to congratulate Hentor on his last response to Sam – it was spot on (with one minor exception) and a clear demonstration of the only way to really discuss an issue with him.
You’re going to have to do better than that if you want anything more than laughter in response.
How about even one fucking specific example, then? Just one? No? Well, you aren’t be the first not to be able to support a statement with anything at all. Certainly not the last, either.
You have just demonstrated you’re not up to even Sam’s level of responsibility. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
Bosstone, this is why I chose not to go any further:
Hentored “offered a supposition” that I’m an idiot who believes lies because they’re said well. It was phrased politely, and I do believe he was genuinely interested in the answer, but that’s what it was. There is no good answer to that. I offered my opinion, I’m not interested in getting into arguments about the basis of it. Take it for what it’s worth.
But you did go further after that. You subsequently said that I and other detractors had not refuted Sam’s “basic premise,” and did not quit your dialog with me until I had asked you what that was.
muttrox, if you’d simply said, “If you’re going to call me an idiot for my opinion, then I don’t see any need to continue further,” immediately after Hentor offended you so, you wouldn’t be getting pressed right now.
Yes, the basic premise of his post was that the 2 Bush presidents have supported NASA to a greater extant than Clinton, whom he though that Kerry would be comparable.
To back that up, the he claimed that funding had eroded under Clinton, which was absolutely true using nominal dollars (-4%) and maybe true using constant dollars (-.3%).
He also claimed that 2 above funding average increases came under the Bushes. This is true using nominal dollars (the average budget increase for the last 30 years was 4.9%. Bush II had a 5.0%, Bush I had many, Clinton’s largest was a 3.3%. ) but it is false using constant dollars.
In summary, Sam cherry picked data to support his position, you cherry picked data to dispute his position. You are 100% equivalent to Sam. The only difference is ideology.
Sorry Bosstone, I’ve been checking the handheld to see when Sam returns to offer his apology. I couldn’t resist responding, even though muttrox isn’t talking to me.
Mr. Svinlesha, thanks for the kind words. I admit to being curious about the one minor exception.
False. You cannot provide any discussion on this point if you don’t understand the nature of the assertions. Perhaps for the last time I’ll try to help you get it. Sam’s claim was that the Bushes stand out above all presidents over the past 30 years in their funding of NASA. In no manner of examining the data do they exceed all other presidents. In the most favorable interpretation (for his assertion) of the data, they are still exceeded by Reagan.
Do you understand that? Can you find any way to look at presidents over the past 30 years that has the Bushes exceeding all other presidents? Remember, these guys are “nuts” about space. It’s just what they do. Can you support that assertion?
You are reading into it so you can create this strawman. Here’s the quote in question:
He doesn’t claim it was the only 2 times. That wouldn’t make sense, because he’s talking about an average, which by its very nature, is going to be middle of the road, which multiple values above and below it.
Still, in order to get another above average increase, you have to go back 25 years to the first Reagan Administration.
So…If we take your interpretation (only 2), then Sam’s 30 year figure was wrong. Can we agree that the Bushes were the best in the last 25 years, then?
Sam was quite strenuous about claiming that Bush’s first recession, the one that started after he took office, was actually Clinton’s fault, based on some notion of “the business cycle”. By a sufficiently elastic use of the time lag involved , he was also able to credit the economic boom under Clinton to Reagan’s policies. But, to his credit, he isn’t trying to divert blame for this one from Bush, and the policies he himself so staunchly championed - he’s simply been silent on the matter. It still would be nice to see him admit he was (once again) completely and dishonestly wrong, but do give him credit for not (this once) trying to claim he was actually right.
That business cycle argument, btw, is a marvelous one - you can invoke it for anything with an imaginative enough use of the time lag approach. The housing collapse of today, f’rinstance, gets blamed by some of the RW commentariat on laws enacted under Carter.