Obama to Call for $50 Billion Spending for Infrastructure

How long will you guys continued to get played by our "new" buddy tallanvor?

Something suggests to me that a guy who claimed airliners flew into the burlington coat factory first on september 11 prior to flying vertically upward into the WTC is probably not being entirely sincere.

 

this

I've had my doubts for while that our new D&D buddy isn't quite what he seems.

 

Maybe - but as long as he provides arguments based on logic (whether we agree with them or not) and doesn't act like an idiot (basso, bigtexxx, etc), I don't see a reason not to have a discussion with him.

Outside of the WTC claim, his other posts have been fairly grounded in traditional conservative philosophy.

 

Your description of his claim is as twisted as his claim actually was. I think you overestimate the incidences of insincerity from people of opposing viewpoints, and even if he is insincere, that doesn't mean the arguments can't be discussed and debated.

Exactly. Beside, who else is there to have a discussion with?

 

Not really. The only twisted thing is you willing to pretzel yourself in defense of this clown.

Like claiming that the state of Texas has a budget surplus? Or that the AZ immigration bill was "thousands of pages long" when it's about 15 or so?

That is indeed traditional conservative philosphy - a combination of bald faced lies and mouth breathing ignorance.

 

I didn't see the AZ thing, but the the comment about the Texas budget surplus is repeated quite a bit. Depending on how you measure it, the budget did have a surplus for much of the last decade, though it's no longer the case and isn't an exhaustive analysis of the budget. But nevertheless, you'll see it from conservatives all the time:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/feb/12/rick-perry/perry-says-texas-has-surplus/

 

Anybody that makes definitively wrong statements on a regular basis and then just ignores the corrections only to go on and make some other wrong statement has got to be troll .... or a Fox News correspondent.

It's like a wrecking ball of stupid beating down the wall of rationality.

 

To be Fair and Balanced, you have to be half right and half wrong.

Nobody likes a know it all.

 

No, it's not trolling. Although treating it like trolling certainly makes the problem worse.

It's a combination of confirmation bias and a counter to the actions of the opposition. For example, confirmation bias might have you convinced that Obama is a socialist, and then people call you a liar or a troll or racist (which you don't believe to be true) and it reinforces your incorrect beliefs and makes everything the opposition says suspect.

 

That left-wing rag, The Wall Street Journal, seems to disagree with you and "Politifact."



MAY 26, 2010

Big Texas Deficit Puts Governor in Tight Spot
Perry Wants Cuts Alone to Close Gap, But Critics Say Solution is Shortsighted

By ANA CAMPOY
DALLAS—A Texas-size hole in the Lone Star state's budget is putting pressure on Gov. Rick Perry, who is running for re-election this year as a model fiscal conservative.

Mr. Perry, a Republican in office for a decade, is touting his tax-cutting prowess and tight-fisted spending record as proof that he remains the right man for the job. He has maintained a wide lead in polls.

But as the state's budget shortfall widens—to as much as $18 billion, or about 20% of the next two-year budget, according to the state legislature's latest analysis released earlier this month—critics are complaining that Mr. Perry's policies have left the state with little room to reduce spending.

"There is no way that they will be able to come up with $18 billion in cuts," said Eva DeLuna Castro, a senior budget analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income Texans. "They would have to shut down our prison system."

Conservatives say that while cutting enough to balance the budget will be hard, it can be done, and that the governor is the right man to do it. "He has worked hard to encourage the legislature to keep spending within the revenue available," said Talmadge Heflin, director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank that backs limited government.

The governor's cost-cutting zeal is being questioned after the Associated Press reported he had spent some $600,000 of taxpayer dollars over the past couple of years to rent and maintain a luxurious home while the official governor's mansion was repaired after a fire.

The state's Democratic Party responded to the report with a YouTube video that flashes images of the governor's rental home—complete with wood paneling, a chandelier and a heated pool—and plays the theme music from the television show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

"While Texas families tighten their belts…why should we pay for Perry's extravagant rental mansion?" is the video's closing line.

A spokeswoman for the governor said that he, too, is cutting back, slashing his office budget by 10.8% and asking the agencies that fund his living quarters to reduce spending by 5%.

Texas doesn't levy an income tax and boasts that it has one of the nation's lowest overall tax burdens. Those policies, Mr. Perry has argued, have attracted businesses to the state and strengthened its economy. While many states saw their economies shrink in 2008, the first year of the national recession, Texas continued to grow.

But the economic downturn is catching up with Texas. Sales-tax revenue started falling in February 2009 compared with the previous year, and only started to recover a bit in April of this year.

Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget. Those funds won't be available for the next budget.

Political analysts say the state's financial woes may bolster the campaign of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Bill White, the former mayor of Houston.

Mr. White said the governor has focused on shortsighted fiscal policies, including plugging budget holes with stimulus money. "For 10 years Rick Perry has failed to develop a long-term budget," he said.

Mr. Perry countered that he has ample budget-balancing experience and that he overcame a $10 billion deficit in 2003. He has promised to put the state's finances in order without raising taxes. As an initial step, he and other state leaders this month ordered budget cuts of $1.2 billion across state agencies.

"These reductions reflect our state's ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low by limiting government spending, a key aspect of the continued strength of our state's economy," he said.

Local officials, meanwhile, worried they would end up bearing the brunt of state cutbacks.

"Our great fear is that they will dump a bunch of unfunded mandates on counties," said Elna Christopher, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of Counties.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704513104575256734081528528.html

The "Rainy Day Fund" is supposed to be for emergencies. Perry would like to use it to claim there is a "surplus," when in reality there is not. Why? Because he cut taxes, revenues dropped, and he did nothing to increase revenue, unless you count deliberately fostering a policy that makes it more difficult for those in need to get state funds they are entitled to. Programs like CHIP. People like the elderly and children of low income parents.

I wouldn't take everything "Politifact" says to the bank, Major.

 

Isn't that exactly what the politifact article (and Major) are saying?

 

Deckard has some personal/defensiveness issues with me and often doesn't actually read what I write. This is not the first time he's decided what he thinks I'm saying and then went nuts attacking it for some bizarre reason.

 

Well, you could have simply posted that I had misread you post, which I clearly did, but you chose to insult me by posting some stupid crap that points more at your own insecurities, than at anything regarding me. Consider a hail and hearty "**** you!" sent your way.

Sources like "Politifact" frequently piss me off. They claim to dispassionately examine the facts and determine what the "truth" is, but what they do is muddy up the truth. Perry created the current crisis, along with his friends in the Lege, by pushing policies that insured we would have a shortfall unless the stars aligned perfectly, in some sky known only to their imagination. Then they attempt to blame it on someone else, at the same time saying the problem they're blaming on someone else doesn't exist. And if it does, well, it was the fault of the "someone else." Simply fill in the blank, rinse, and repeat. One can be assured that the "blank" will be filled by a Democrat, a moderate, a liberal, or a combination there of. "Politifact," in fact, is giving political cover to Rick Perry and the Republican majority in the Texas Legislature, intended or not.

 

But the truth is muddy. People trying to make it clear actually make the problem worse because they hide or gloss over the parts of the truth that don't fit the "clear" narrative they are giving. When two sides with differing viewpoints both do that, that is when you get really muddy truths, because both sides are presenting partial truths that conflict and an ordinary person not familiar with the details doesn't know who to believe. Sites like politifact and factcheck.org do a great job, in my opinion, of taking those partial truths that present a given narrative and add information so that what you have is much closer to the whole truth.

In many instances, you might think that one of the partial truths is much more accurate than the other, but there is no obvious and fair way to separate those instances from others where both sides are equally valid (or invalid). The only way to do it fairly is to treat all conflicts the same and attempt present the whole truth, mud and all.

 

When it comes to contemporary politics it's not even remotely as muddy as you portray - simply put, many things pitched by the right are demonstrably wrong; however your overly accomodating stance provides a useful tool to be exploited by some. Guess who that is.

 

On the contrary, I think it is behavior like yours that gives ammunition to those who use misinformation to further their agenda. I'm having a hard time putting it into words, so I'll go back to the example scenario I mentioned earlier:

Imagine you are a well-meaning individual just trying to decide what makes the most sense. Perhaps because it was ingrained into you by your parents or community, you are predisposed to believe that conservative philosophies are better and that liberalism is bad. You look at a conservative claim (something like tax cuts will reduce deficits) and maybe due to confirmation bias you think it makes sense and you believe those who say that they stimulate the economy enough to bring in revenue to cover what was lost in taxes.

Now what if you were faced with two guys, both liberals, both who believe that such a notion is laffable. One calls you ignorant or a liar or both and dismisses the argument completely. The other explains that the truth is somewhat muddy, in that it's possible that at high enough tax rates that argument could hold water, but that at tax rates as low as they are now, cutting taxes will almost certainly reduce revenue and then shows you that that is what has happened historically.

What do you think would be your reaction to each of those individuals? Don't you think that with the first, you would automatically assume he's just another of the arrogant liberal elite who prefers to make personal attacks than look at facts? When faced with the second, maybe you wouldn't just immediately believe him. Maybe you would also dismiss his argument at first as somebody who just doesn't get it. But then what if you have the discussion again? And again? The first liberal will accuse you of being a troll because you haven't agreed with his (obvious) argument despite it being presented repeatedly. But if you'd only listened to the second liberal each time instead, you'd eventually take another look at what you learned. Maybe you'd see how even conservative economists agree that cutting taxes would increase the deficit. So you'd soften your stance and stop making the argument, and eventually change your mind completely.​

Pretty much nobody changes their mind about something based on a single debate on the internet. But when presented with the real facts over and over again by someone who acts courteously and respectfully, people do change their opinion. When presented with insults and accusations over and over again, people just harden their stances and entrench themselves into their beliefs.

And I hope you're not assuming that just because I acknowledge that the truth is muddy that I let falsehoods and misconceptions go unchallenged. Nobody is exploiting my "accommodating stance", except perhaps those with an open mind trying to find the real truth.

 

Hello - I would like to welcome you to the internet. Please let me know if you have any questions as to how to navigate the world wide web.

I'm trying to think of a good metaphor here but I'm at a loss. Maybe like the French Prime Minister in "Mars Attacks!"

 

I don't get this response. Are you disputing what I said? Did you misread it? I didn't say it out of wishful thinking, it's based on actual experience.

Of course, I didn't think you'd actually take my thoughts seriously (obviously, since you're arguing that being stubborn and insulting is better than listening and being respectful).

 

Indeed, well then I'll sit back and wait and watch you change hearts and minds. Persuadatron 5000 activate.