Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[Jack Hays]

That is not true. The federal budget immediately after WWII took a huge drop...but the spending on veterans had that post-war hump. It's like you're implying that a VA spending increase is somehow due to the overall federal spending increase...but such an observation falls afoul of the correlation/causation fallacy.

Increased VA spending was driven by the same economic causes that drove increased overall spending. Your own graphics pointed out the need of many veterans.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Without the Vietnam War, there was no Agent Orange.

Agent Orange notwithstanding.

 

[Jack Hays]

:shock: :lamo: Excellent!

Good evening Jack, :2wave:

Thanks.:mrgreen:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Just customary opposition. BHO had majorities in both houses. The complaints are just whining, and excuses for political incompetence.eace

"Just customary opposition"...that's like saying that the mountain sitting in the middle of a bunch of molehills was just "customary mole engineering".

 

[Glen Contrarian]

bipartisanship: noun -- Republicans doing what Democrats want.eace

Never mind that at NO time in American history since the Civil War has one party stuck so strongly to party-line voting for such a period of time.

Jack, you're doing a wonderful job of ignoring the obvious, telling yourself that the 800-lb. gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room is just another piece of furniture.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Historically most disability claims are not combat related. No surprise there.

Except for the fact that in times of warfare, people die and get wounded at a FAR greater rate than in peacetime. I really don't understand how you don't get that.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

[h=3]Spending Steadily Increasing[/h] Government spending in the United States has steadily increased from $1.5 trillion in the mid 1980s to over $6 trillion today. But as a percent of GDP it has kept in a range from 33 percent to 38 percent of GDP.

Chart 2.11: Government Spending in dollars

Government spending first reached $1.5 trillion in the mid 1980s, and then breached $2 trillion in the recession year of 1991. In the 1990s spending increases started to level off, reaching $3 trillion in 1999. But in the 2000s with the dot-com crash and 9/11 government spending began to accelerate, reaching $4 trillion in 2004 and $5 trillion in 2008. Then came the Crash of 2008 and government spending exploded to $6 trillion in 2010. After a few years of modest growth, spending is expected to resume regular increases by the mid 2010s.

And that explains your point about spending on veterans' disabilities...how?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Increased VA spending was driven by the same economic causes that drove increased overall spending. Your own graphics pointed out the need of many veterans.eace

Okay, maybe I'm slow - please point out the economic causes that increased overall spending that ALSO drove increased VA spending...but did so with those post-war bumps I showed you.

 

[Cyrylek]

Reagan wasting billions on "Star Wars" had little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fall came from within.

Nonsense. The way Western leaders acted in the early 80s was absolutely crucial. Totalitarian systems are built on fear and absolute control; strength and consistency of signals coming from the top of the pyramid are all-important.

History of the Soviet Union was one economic or social disaster after another, but it did not create any serious threats to the regime. People don't matter. (Compare: North Korea).

What mattes is that at every given moment the Kremlin knew exactly what to do, and transmitted orders smoothly all the way to the bottom. The "Star Wars", among other challenges posed by Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II and Co. have been successful because they garbled those signals. People in charge of the hideous empire did NOT know what to deal with them, and started their clumsy limited reforms ("perestroika"). But you can't "reform" something like the USSR: once the absolute certainty of totalitarian system disappears, everything falls apart instantly - there's no economic or social glue to hold it together.

 

[Cyrylek]

LOL Being on the wrong side means your ideology failed and the oppositions ideology became the law of the land...

Liberal democracies are perfectly capable of "reversing history" and abolishing bad laws adopted under "progressive" delusions. We have repealed the Prohibition after its idiocy became obvious, did we not? (Unfortunately, a lot of damage was already done by then).

 

[cpwill]

Liberal democracies are perfectly capable of "reversing history" and abolishing bad laws adopted under "progressive" delusions. We have repealed the Prohibition after its idiocy became obvious, did we not? (Unfortunately, a lot of damage was already done by then).

Not to mention Eugenics, the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif, and even (gasp) veterans entitlements.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Just customary opposition"...that's like saying that the mountain sitting in the middle of a bunch of molehills was just "customary mole engineering".

Never mind that at NO time in American history since the Civil War has one party stuck so strongly to party-line voting for such a period of time.

Jack, you're doing a wonderful job of ignoring the obvious, telling yourself that the 800-lb. gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room is just another piece of furniture.

To which the only reasonable response is: So what? All you're telling me is that the opposition organized themselves effectively.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Except for the fact that in times of warfare, people die and get wounded at a FAR greater rate than in peacetime. I really don't understand how you don't get that.

In wartime people certainly die and get wounded at a higher rate, but that does not mean that disability claims increase commensurately.

 

[Jack Hays]

And that explains your point about spending on veterans' disabilities...how?

Increased spending on veterans was simply a subset of overall increased spending, dealing with a poor economy. Your graphic only indicates increased spending on veterans; it does not specify that spending was for disabilities.

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay, maybe I'm slow - please point out the economic causes that increased overall spending that ALSO drove increased VA spending...but did so with those post-war bumps I showed you.

The discussion is Iraq. The post-Iraq bump coincides with increased non-disability veteran needs, economically derived, as well as war disabilities.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

pocket change in the scheme of things
you can do simple arithmetic?

 

[Misterveritis]

The only "ruinous rates of taxation" America has ever had were low ones.

When we had considerably higher rates, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we built the great American middle class. Before the Bush Tax Cuts, we had the Clinton tax rates, and our economy was never better. When tax rates get slashed, the result is massive unemployment: 1932, 1982, 2008.

LOL. Do you actually believe the nonsense you write? Are you familiar with effective rates or only with marginal rates?

 

[Comunitee]

The only "ruinous rates of taxation" America has ever had were low ones.

When we had considerably higher rates, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we built the great American middle class. Before the Bush Tax Cuts, we had the Clinton tax rates, and our economy was never better. When tax rates get slashed, the result is massive unemployment: 1932, 1982, 2008.

LOL. Do you actually believe the nonsense you write? Are you familiar with effective rates or only with marginal rates?

WHAT that I said was "nonsense"? The rates of the 1940s, '50s, '60s and '90s WERE effective rates. VERY effective.

I'd settle for just bringing back the rates we had under your boy, Ronald Reagan. Whoever was President could then balance the budget rather quickly.

 

[Misterveritis]

The only "ruinous rates of taxation" America has ever had were low ones.

When we had considerably higher rates, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we built the great American middle class. Before the Bush Tax Cuts, we had the Clinton tax rates, and our economy was never better. When tax rates get slashed, the result is massive unemployment: 1932, 1982, 2008.



WHAT that I said was "nonsense"? The rates of the 1940s, '50s, '60s and '90s WERE effective rates. VERY effective.

I'd settle for just bringing back the rates we had under your boy, Ronald Reagan. Whoever was President could then balance the budget rather quickly.

You should have just said you had no idea what effective rates were.

 

[Misterveritis]

The only "ruinous rates of taxation" America has ever had were low ones.

When we had considerably higher rates, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, we built the great American middle class. Before the Bush Tax Cuts, we had the Clinton tax rates, and our economy was never better. When tax rates get slashed, the result is massive unemployment: 1932, 1982, 2008.



WHAT that I said was "nonsense"? The rates of the 1940s, '50s, '60s and '90s WERE effective rates. VERY effective.

I'd settle for just bringing back the rates we had under your boy, Ronald Reagan. Whoever was President could then balance the budget rather quickly.

You want to bring the rates then let's return to the tax code we had then.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

only a wage slave who files a 1040ez could believe such hogwash