Shodan Has Issues with Dean

Great Debates
61

Pantom: You’re right - Pakistan and Indonesia could provide some troops. Indonesia not many, given that it’s entire army is only 220,000 men, and it’s quite busy already. Pakistan has 520,000 soldiers, but many of them are tied up already. Is there any evidence whatsoever that these countries are willing to put up any significant numbers of troops? The U.S. has already called for international help, and received very little. The U.S. has also asked the U.N. to take a significant role, and the U.N. has refused.

Frankly, I think the notion of getting all Americans out of there and replacing them with Muslim troops is just a crafty way for Dean to placate the ‘bring the boys home’ wing of the Democratic party while attempting to keep at least a shred of credibility in foreign affairs. It’s a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too policy. If he gets elected, he can also say that that’s what he wanted, but Muslim countries have turned him down, so the Americans have to stay. Easy out.

62

They can’t stop the hijacks, Sam. What you are asking is like demanding that a crackhead just stop smoking rock. It’s at the same time perfectly reasonable for you to suggest this course of action, but impossible for the addict to simply stop as you suggest.

The lefties on the SDMB seem to be unable to even carry on a political discussion without rabidly attacking Bush.

Diogenes at least admits it. He’d vote for anybody who isn’t Bush.

Dean’s positions on issues don’t matter. His character doesn’t matter. He’s just not Bush. It’s an even bigger plus that he’s anti-Bush.

Bush is all that matters to these people.

63

Here’s Dean’s plan for Iraq. I think someone challenged him to see how many times he could use “UN” on one web page.

Luci’:
If you’re not interested in debating the various Dem candidates, why don’t you bug off and let the rest of us debate them? Since you have nothing to add to this debate, the only reason for you to continue your diatribe is if you wish to prevent this debate from taking place. Is that your intent?

64

Sam, the US has gone to the UN (and to the rest of the world) and said, in effect, “Um, guys, we invaded this country under false pretenses, after the rest of the world told us not to. We’ve found out that a lot of people really hate Americans and resent our army for invading, and our army is acting as a magnet for Islamic terrorists from across the region. Any chance we can get you guys to come in under American control and let us order you around?”

That’s not what Dean’s calling for, if I read him correctly.

He’s saying, “Um, guys, my predecessor invaded this country, and sure, he got rid of an evil tyrant, but he went about it in a really stupid and deceitful fashion, and now we’re in a real mess. I’m wanting to make amends with the rest of the world. To do so, I’d like to give the UN a major decisionmaking role in the region; if I do that, would you be willing to come in and help The United Nations set things aright?”

Major difference. Folks who aren’t willing to go in under American command might be very willing to go in under UN command. Folks who are perfectly happy attacking United States soldiers might not be so happy attacking Pakistani soldiers working under UN command.

Of course some folks will still attack the UN (as we saw previously), and of course some folks won’t go in even under the UN. But it’d be a damn sight better than what we have now.

Daniel

65

Well, as Ravenman has pointed out, you are still wrong. For one thing, the $477 billion is a cumulative amount over several years whereas the 52% figure is for that one year. So, you can’t just divide $477 by 0.52. In fact, you would have to divide by the average percentage going to the rich over many years which is probably more like 0.35 or so. That, when divided by 10, would then get you an average cost of the tax cut over 10 years but would still not give you the cost when fully phased in. (Also, some or all of this is relying on old numbers that were valid before Bush sped up the phase in of the tax cuts. For heaven’s sake, if you want to try to make careful financial arguments against Dean, you could start by using at least a little care in getting your figures. You seem almost purposely resistant to doing that.)

66

Yeah, right, like I could do that. My awesome power, and stuff.

But, ok, fair enough. My last word on this: GeeDubya has surrendered any right he may have had to be considered as a reasonable candidate, with debateable premises. What possible difference can it make what he promises you, when he has already looked you right in the eye and lied through his teeth?

You’re about to sit on Santa’s lap, and want to engage in a sober, clear-eyed debate over whether to wish for a pony or an assault rifle. I point out to you that he’s really just a wino pulled in off the street, and his breath reeks of Thunderbird. Oh, and he just wet himself.

You still wanna sit? Sit, then. You want to focus our attention on how nicely he can polish the coffee table? Hokily dokily. The elephant is still in the living room. Maybe you can wish it into the corn field. Good luck.

67

C’mon, Sam, this isn’t about Dean, it’s about the election. It’s downright silly to pretend to be discussing only one candidate when the topic is about how that candidate compares to others. One’s pronouncements about one guy are necessarily assessed in relation to one’s pronouncements about other guys, or they really don’t mean anything at all. Look up “hypocrisy” sometime, right after you’re done finally learning about “excluded middle.”

Naturally, though, if you (and John and Debaser) would rather not discuss Bush’s fuzzy-math fiscal policies, and your loyalty to them, at all, that is completely understandable. But what you say about Dean’s policies is credible only in relation to that, ya know? Intellectual integrity and all that.

68

In the interest of keeping this debate as honest and accurate on the facts as possible, I do feel compelled to note that if this is the CBO projection I think it is, it does incorporate some pretty optimistic assumptions (besides that the tax cuts will be allowed to sunset). These include:

(1) Severe constraints on spending growth.
(2) The assumption that nothing will be done to prevent the AMT from continuing to hit more and more people in the middle class.

The fact is that it is almost impossible to estimate budget surplusses or deficits far into the future. It might not be too hard to do it under certain assumptions regarding policy (although, even with that, you have assumptions about economic growth and such) but one has to keep in mind what those assumptions are.

Thank you, SnoopyFan, for that brilliant summary of our arguments. All because Shodan can put up a few bogus figures and snow you doesn’t mean he can do so for the rest of us.

69

Muchas gracias, amigo.

Elvis:
I personally have no problem debating Bush topics. It’s just that there are umpteen other threads devoted specifically to that. If someone opens one thread to discuss the Dems, is it too much to ask that we actually discuss the Dems?

And that’s my last word on this subject.

70

This thread has strayed somewhat away from economics, but I still don’t see an answer to one key question: Given that the GOP has markedly increased the deficit and shown willingness to institute major new entitlement spending and fund large chunks of pork, is fiscal responsibility an issue that the party can effectively use to hammer Democrats in the upcoming election?

In my opinion it is not.

71

Jackmanii: no way, especially given that they squelched the “pay as you go” restriction left over from the Clinton Admin, as noted above.

72

I hate to be siding with the Evil Republicans ;), but they’re right this time. Even if Dean were running against Karl Rove directly, even if Karl Rove were promising to nuke one country a day until the survivors surrendered unconditionally to US hegemony, even if God Himself came down and ordered us to get a Democrat in office, it would still be a good idea for us to figure out which Democrat would be best in office. That means it would STILL be a good idea for Democrats to debate the policies put forth by various candidates.

I’m not convinced that Dean is the best candidate, but I’m leaning in that direction. Shodan’s economic figures appear to be pretty inaccurate. Dean’s stance on Iraq and what should happen now sounds very close to my own. I’m astonished that, after Enron, anyone is still arguing about whether businesses need stricter regulation.

Daniel

73

LHoD:
I stayed away from investing in the Telecom/Internet bubble. It
didn’t take a genius to see what a trainwreck that was going to be. Most of the people who lost money in those markets were either stupid or greedy or both. Markets are self correcting about things like this. To the extent that the gov’t actively enables some companies to fleece investors or gain a competative advantege, yes, lets change the rules. Otherwise, we need to allow comanies to fail. If there is no risk, the situation only becomes worse as good money follows bad.

74

It’s funny that bush haters assign varying levels of evil to the different republicans. Rove is usually considered more evil than Bush. I suppose this is because he acts in the background and is the one who is basically responsible for getting Bush elected. I guess this makes him more evil than Bush.

And close to Bush’s as well. We are already transitioning power over the the Iraqi’s and many of our forces will be leaving Iraq.
Dean’s web page says:

So, Dean will have US troops in Iraq for over 2 years and then even longer. He doesn’t say how long.

The only difference between Dean’s plan for Iraq and what we are doing now seems to be the world “multilateral” on the top of the page of his web site where he discusses it.

He wants the UN and NATO more involved. So what? We are still going to have US troops over there under Dean or Bush as commander in Chief. The rest is all details. It’s not like more or less troops are going to be in danger because of the flag on the uniform of the general in charge of the occupation army.

I’m astonished that anyone would use one bad apple company (and a few others) out of the thousands of successful US companies to try and interfere with the system of capitalism that has worked so well for so long.

Plus, why do we need more regulation when what the Enron execs did was already illegal? If a bank is robbed, do you demand more laws against armed robbery?

I mean, I can understand wanting more or better enforcement of existing laws. But making new regulations to stop action that is already illegal doesn’t make sense.

75

I think it is.

Sure, the republicans have lost some credibility with the lack of control of spending. But, with them in charge taxes have been lowered. Also, spending has increased, but by less amounts than it would have with Democrats in charge of all branches of government.

As long as Bush is increasing the size of programs by only half as much as they are asking for the Democrats continue to say he’s cutting them. For the same reason, Bush can argue that he is more fiscally responisble than a liberal would be in office.

Plus, just MHO, but I think Bush will take some huge wacks out of social programs if he is given a second term. Without worrying about re-election and with the larger portions of the tax cut kicking in, it might actually happen. This would make me happy, and I don’t think it would hurt the party as much as they are afraid it will.

76

You’re right: 130,000 US troops will leave Iraq in the next three or four months.

But you’re forgetting that there are roughly another 110,000 US troops that will be going to Iraq in the next three or four months for one year tours of duty. In fact, members of the National Guard and the Reserves – who make up about 40 percent of that number – are being told that they could be deployed for up to TWO years.

Yes, there will still be troops there, but the difference is that under Bush, there’s going to be 110,000 troops there for the foreseeable future. Under Dean, he’s saying that he wants most of those troops replaced with foreign peacekeepers. In my view, it is much more preferable to have 20,000 or 30,000 US troops in Iraq than it is to have 110,000.

Perhaps a reasonable response to bank robberies is to require banks to put up more security cameras and hire more security guards so that folks won’t try to rob banks and steal people’s money.

Same thing with corporations. Reform is needed to require more transparancy to deter the greedy corporate robber-barons from even thinking about stealing the pensions of working class Americans.

77

The word “multilateral” isn’t a nitpick; it’s the very word that’s going to get other countries to join in, and it’s a word that’s going to deflate some of the anger against the US that’s fueling terrorism.

We’ll still have troops over there – but if we cede control to the United Nations, we’ll find that other countries are far more willing to send troops.

Most of the people who lost money to Enron were neither stupid nor greedy: they were simply people with retirement funds who believed the funds were being managed properly. Retirement funds account for the stockholdings of the majority of Americans (I believe – if anyone can cite this one way or the other, I’d appreciate it, because I can’t remember where I read it). Those who trusted their fund managers weren’t stupid, any more than those people who trust their doctors or their mechanics are stupid.

And Enron wasn’t one bad apple amongst thousands of corporations; have you not been following the news lately? Though the majority of companies may behave ethically, there were plenty of big companies who didn’t – and it was precisely their unethical behavior that allowed them to rise to the tops of their fields. And it was the lack of regulatory oversight that allowed them to get away with it.

I’m all about the reregulation.
Daniel

78

I think the Republicans have lost a lot of credibility on spending restraint. But they can hammer Dean on his goofy ‘re-regulation’ plan, and especially his reversal of support for NAFTA and free trade in general. That’s going to cost him a lot, because free trade is an issue that enjoys wide bipartisan support, and is going to cost Dean a lot of independent votes.

79

Dean wants a big UN presence in Iraq. I don’t know if he can actually get it or not, but he says he wants it. That’s a big difference between him and Bush, although I don’t know how big a difference it is from the other Dems. There are many Americans who would like to see more “internationalization” of the Iraq reconstruction. Dean will appeal that segment. It’s really not complicated.

80

John, if you really think a candidate can be meaningfully discussed in isolation, you’re welcome to. But only by avoiding comparisons can you maintain your dudgeon.

If you had been actually paying any attention, you’d know better. The hand inside the puppet is in control, not the puppet. Bush is essentially passive, but Rove is active.

Only window-dressing, if that. It is also not at all clear that US force levels can be or will be significantly less in the near future - even Bush calls that a “trick question”. You know better because?

It’s more definite, and therefore honest, than what Bush is saying, though.

You’re assuming that putting a UN badge on it won’t make a difference in Iraqis’ belief that it’s an army of imperialism rather than police. That’s silly. It’s their attitudes that will make any effort there succeed or fail, not ours or anyone else’s.

Straw man. There is no good reason to think the problem stops with them, just hopeful thinking. Excluded middle too, btw - we haven’t had laissez-faire in many generations, yet somehow we’ve survived.

Another misrepresentation. The “more regulation” you complain of is simply enforcement - something these guys refuse to do.

Please, if you can’t state other views honestly, you can’t debunk them honestly, or convince any thinking person of your own. Try to make an effort, okay?

As for the Bush budgets, he has increased the budget by a higher percentage rate per year than any other postwar president. You’ve spun yourself into knots explaining that away.