Fuck its silent in here.......

[Chuck to Chuck]

For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

Roll the dice with them on what? The idea that tax cuts completely pay for themselves through increased revenue? I don't think Morph is suggesting that, nor do I believe Milton Friedman ever argued the same. The notion that we're on the downward sloping side of the Laffer curve right now? Ditto.

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending."  - Milton Friedman

While the context isn't precisely the same as this exact discussion, we can extrapolate this to mean he would not support a roll back of the Bush tax cuts.  No?

No?  Are you 100% CERTAIN Milt wouldn't say "It's just not possible right now."?

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.

Don't understand the assumptions? Maybe try taking a look at the CBO source documents before dismissing them offhand?

It has to be more complicated? Well, no shit. Projections are just that - projections. So why do you think this projection is more or less valid than any other projection? Or are we just going to dismiss any conclusion that's too complicated?

Why will the CBO healthcare models "never ever" come to fruition? What makes the CBO models more or less dependable than the other models that I presume you're relying on?

There seems to be a lot of hand-waving and dismissal going on here without either offering alternate conclusions or some sort of justification for the hand-waving.

I don't mind discussing this, but please don't bend what I typed.  I didn't "dismiss" anything...I just didn't choose to blindly accept a rudimentary graph as gospel.  I'm fine with the CBO and what they do...but their models are also infamous for being "garbage in - garbage out".   I'm not in a position this morning where I can rip into a deep dive fact-finding mission on wherever those numbers cane from.

Case in point, a quick Google search brought me this generic article (not from a right-wing website) pertaining to the modeling that was used to claim Obamacare would be solvent.  At some point, I bet the CBO even showed this graphically.  Do you really think all of those things will occur?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html

[R-V]

That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.

Don't understand the assumptions? Maybe try taking a look at the CBO source documents before dismissing them offhand?

It has to be more complicated? Well, no shit. Projections are just that - projections. So why do you think this projection is more or less valid than any other projection? Or are we just going to dismiss any conclusion that's too complicated?

Why will the CBO healthcare models "never ever" come to fruition? What makes the CBO models more or less dependable than the other models that I presume you're relying on?

There seems to be a lot of hand-waving and dismissal going on here without either offering alternate conclusions or some sort of justification for the hand-waving.

I don't mind discussing this, but please don't bend what I typed.  I didn't "dismiss" anything...I just didn't choose to blindly accept a rudimentary graph as gospel.  I'm fine with the CBO and what they do...but their models are also infamous for being "garbage in - garbage out".   I'm not in a position this morning where I can rip into a deep dive fact-finding mission on wherever those numbers cane from.

Case in point, a quick Google search brought me this generic article (not from a right-wing website) pertaining to the modeling that was used to claim Obamacare would be solvent.  At some point, I bet the CBO even showed this graphically.  Do you really think all of those things will occur?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html

Nobody claimed the graph was gospel. It's just a graph plotting expected debt as a percentage of GDP. No one is asking you to take some wild leap of faith by agreeing that some lines on a graph might be reasonable given what we know. Everyone knows that ANY projection prepared by any body, public or private, trying to estimate events more than a few years in the future, is a crapshoot. But the CBO's purpose is to do the best they can with the data, and they've got scores of dorks sitting around working on these projections. Any projection can be picked apart. But is there a body out there that's more reliable than the CBO?

"They're neutral and they're well qualified," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat. "But quite a few things have to be judgmental. It's a tough business."

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

[Oleg]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

[SKO]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

And he's black. They're not good with money, kay? Have you SEEN all those unsavory neighborhoods of theirs? You don't get there by being fiscally responsible.

[R-V]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

Sure there is. Just ask Gil.

He also developed a policy toward Native Americans that is still in place today, proposed a Family Assistance Program to provide a guaranteed income to welfare recipients, and, after the 1972 election, implemented wage and price controls. Finally, Nixon cut a deal with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to increase Social Security payments and index them to inflation, which Barone called a "tremendous piece of public policy" that lifted elderly people out of poverty.

[Gilgamesh]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

Sure there is. Just ask Gil.

He also developed a policy toward Native Americans that is still in place today, proposed a Family Assistance Program to provide a guaranteed income to welfare recipients, and, after the 1972 election, implemented wage and price controls. Finally, Nixon cut a deal with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to increase Social Security payments and index them to inflation, which Barone called a "tremendous piece of public policy" that lifted elderly people out of poverty.

You fucker.

[Gilgamesh]

And there is precedent for major legislation to be overturned or augmented once another party comes into power.  Probably nothing as consequential as SS, Medicare or the recent health care bill, but the Wagner Act was passed in 1935, the GOP spent the better part of the next 12 years advocating it's repeal.  When they came into power, they amended it significantly with the Taft Hartley Act, which passed over Truman's veto in 1947.  However, again, nothing as significant as the other laws I made mention of.  That was one of the fears the GOP had with HCR was that once passed, there would be little chance to repeal it, as Americans generally learn to like laws after they are passed and often don't want them repealed.

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Not inherently.  But when a huge chunk of the funding for the largest spending program in U.S. history is contingent on the enactment of laws that won't take effect for 8 years...the math certainly should be open to scrutiny and doubt.  Not by the CBO (you and I agree, they are merely "messengers" of the data and assumptions they are given), but by the elected officials voting on the larger bill.

Of course the larger Health Care bill won't be repealed.  This is the "genius" of kicking the financial can so far down the road.   This law will survive at least the next three years (obviously), over which time certain portions of the bill will become instituted.  By the time 2018 rolls around, it will be too late to turn the boat, and the challenges of funding this will largely be the problem of other politicos. 

[Gilgamesh]

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Not inherently.  But when a huge chunk of the funding for the largest spending program in U.S. history is contingent on the enactment of laws that won't take effect for 8 years...the math certainly should be open to scrutiny and doubt.  Not by the CBO (you and I agree, they are merely "messengers" of the data and assumptions they are given), but by the elected officials voting on the larger bill.

Of course the larger Health Care bill won't be repealed.  This is the "genius" of kicking the financial can so far down the road.   This law will survive at least the next three years (obviously), over which time certain portions of the bill will become instituted.  By the time 2018 rolls around, it will be too late to turn the boat, and the challenges of funding this will largely be the problem of other politicos. 

Your post talked about the Health Care law, but I didn't see you mention Social Security, Medicare, World War II, the Defense budget for the past 20 years, or the Iraq War.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

"Historic ignorance of American elites" indeed.

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

Last week, Newt Gingrich released a Newt Direct statement at Newt.org concerning the project.  As you may have heard, he's somewhat opposed to it.  And to explain why, he offered this history lesson:

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.  For example, most of them don't understand that "Cordoba House" is a deliberately insulting term.  It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex. [...I]n fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.  It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. [emphasis mine]

It's that appositive phrase there buried in the middle of my quote that is the problem.  In these twenty-five words, Newt offers the final word on medieval Cordoba: "the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex."  This fact, the transformation of a church into a mosque, is the only thing we should think of when we hear a modern Muslim use the word "Cordoba," according to Mr. Gingrich.

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history.  Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712.  The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that.  Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized".  Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years.  But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too.  Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians.  Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's....

...

[J. Walter Weatherman]

...

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area.  A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled. Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.

So what should modern Christians think when they hear a Muslim use the word "Cordoba"?  Well, I know that Newt hasn't been a Catholic for very long now, but maybe his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called "The Catholic Encyclopedia".  Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba:

In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.

The article then discusses the persecution of the Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius.  Then it continues with the rule of those rulers who expanded the Mosque:

In 962 Abd-er Rahman III was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim. Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed [...] the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens. From all quarters came students eager to drink at its founts of knowledge. Among the men afterwards famous who studied at Cordova were the scholarly monk Gerbert, destined to sit on the Chair of Peter as Sylvester II (999-1003), the Jewish rabbis Moses and Maimonides, and the famous Spanish-Arabian commentator on Aristotle, Averroes.

So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.

[Wheezer]

Brock Landers?

[PenPho]

Brock Landers?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

[Gilgamesh]

Brock Landers?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.