Calgary Centre Federal By-election - Nov 26 (UPDATE - Crockatt wins for CPC)

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Some more news to make the residents of Calgary Centre proud to be represented by a CPC Member of Parliament:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5811986/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle5832220/

Nothing helps a good political discussion like bringing in the Palestinian situation. Those debates are worse than the political ones.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Nothing helps a good political discussion like bringing in the Palestinian situation. Those debates are worse than the political ones.

And especially debates in the UN. Now there's an impartial and fair organization if I've ever seen one.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by jammies

I understand perfectly well, and your choice of example shows that you don't understand at all. A more pertinent example would be to compare Union Ed, who makes $40 000 a year, and Corporate Ted, who makes $200 000. Union Ed buys a house for $400 000, or 1000% of his income, and Corporate Ted buys a house for $500 000, which is 250% of his income, yet in crazy_eoj's world, Corporate Ted owes more in real dollars so he is in worse debt than Union Ed. In other words, technically correct but completely irrelevant, because percentages are important as well as real dollars when you are comparing amounts of money owed, no matter how large.

Obama's deficit includes large amounts of debt servicing on the debt left him by Bush, Clinton and the rest. Further, the recession severely limited revenue, so the squeeze was on from both ends. And even further, he represents the Executive and not the Legislative, so he has limited control over the budget. In that context, the percentage of increased debt due to structural deficits is far more important than the dollar amount, because it shows a trend towards more fiscal responsibility, albeit not a sufficiency of it. In conclusion, you are wrong and fixated on simple math which shows you haven't even a superficial knowledge of what you are talking about.

Once again, the left leaning posters on this board move the goalposts, throw in a couple personal insults, and then puff out their chest in victory. Bravo!

For the rest of us, the facts:

• 1 Under Obama US debt has hit more than 16 trillion dollars
• 2 Debt has increased more in Obama's first term than in Bush's 8 year term
• 3 US debt has increased at a much faster rate under Obama than Bush
• 4 Obama largely ignored his own deficit cutting committee, extending Bush tax cuts among other items, leading to debt levels not seen since WWII

[Rathji]

I can get not wanting to blame the first 2 years of debt on Bush, as some people would like to do, but I would like to know the reasoning behind the first year not being Bush's fault. It's not like the United States budgets a month or 2 in advance, so Obama gets elected and suddenly every dollar being spent is his fault.

By the same regard, if we wanted to compare terms fairly, it would also make sense to not count the first year of Bush's first term. Of course, I really don't follow that kind of thing much, and have no idea if it would be favorable to one side of this argument or the other.

Who knows, maybe I am just naive about the whole thing.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Once again, the left leaning posters on this board move the goalposts, throw in a couple personal insults, and then puff out their chest in victory. Bravo!

Saying you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about is not a personal insult. It is an observation on an opinion you hold. "Your opinion is idiotic" is different than "you are an idiot".

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm really not interested in rates of growth or growth percentages

This is your original opinion to which I took issue. Moving the goalposts would be not making arguments pertinent to that statement, which is what you are doing, not me. Restating your original assertion is not an argument, and neither is "explaining" how 100% of a million dollars is more than 400% of one dollar.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

For the rest of us, the facts:

• 1 Under Obama US debt has hit more than 16 trillion dollars
• 2 Debt has increased more in Obama's first term than in Bush's 8 year term
• 3 US debt has increased at a much faster rate under Obama than Bush
• 4 Obama largely ignored his own deficit cutting committee, extending Bush tax cuts among other items, leading to debt levels not seen since WWII

Your "facts" should be more accurately called "cherry-picked data points". And again, restating them isn't an argument, and to be sure, I don't even see that you are making any argument. You are simply restating what you said before, except in list form. Yay?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by jammies

Saying you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about is not a personal insult. It is an observation on an opinion you hold. "Your opinion is idiotic" is different than "you are an idiot".

Sure, if you want to play semantics, go ahead. Calling someone else, or their opinions, idoitic, clearly means more to you than it does to me. Really, I dont care but I find it interesting you choose to make those types of statements. Did it make you feel your point was more important?

This is your original opinion to which I took issue. Moving the goalposts would be not making arguments pertinent to that statement, which is what you are doing, not me. Restating your original assertion is not an argument, and neither is "explaining" how 100% of a million dollars is more than 400% of one dollar.

Well you cut off my opinion to suit your post, which showed I thought the orginial rates posted changed the context because of the rates ignoring real numbers....but ignoring that.. how does your rebuttal that a comparison involving debt as a function of income not change the goalposts from a discussion of year over year percentages? My example clearly illustrated what I was talking about... you choose to talk about something totally different.

Pretty much the definition of moving goalposts... no?

Your "facts" should be more accurately called "cherry-picked data points". And again, restating them isn't an argument, and to be sure, I don't even see that you are making any argument. You are simply restating what you said before, except in list form. Yay?

They are facts, please feel free to show us which are incorrect. You can play semantics, sling insults, and move goalposts all you want... but the problem is you can't prove facts are incorrect. If you can, you would.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well you cut off my opinion to suit your post, which showed I thought the orginial rates posted changed the context because of the rates ignoring real numbers....but ignoring that.. how does your rebuttal that a comparison involving debt as a function of income not change the goalposts from a discussion of year over year percentages? My example clearly illustrated what I was talking about... you choose to talk about something totally different.

Pretty much the definition of moving goalposts... no?

Um, the issue was fiscal irresponsibility of recent US administrations and how best to measure that fiscal irresponsibility. Disagreeing with you on this point is not in any way "moving the goalposts."

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Um, the issue was fiscal irresponsibility of recent US administrations and how best to measure that fiscal irresponsibility. Disagreeing with you on this point is not in any way "moving the goalposts."

Sure, if that's your viewpoint. Probably the only viewpoint worth acknowledging, really.

[jtfrogger]

By the way, there is a brand spanking new US politics thread over here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=122151

Feel free to go pee on each other over there.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Once again, the left leaning posters on this board move the goalposts, throw in a couple personal insults, and then puff out their chest in victory. Bravo!

For the rest of us, the facts:

• 1 Under Obama US debt has hit more than 16 trillion dollars
• 2 Debt has increased more in Obama's first term than in Bush's 8 year term
• 3 US debt has increased at a much faster rate under Obama than Bush
• 4 Obama largely ignored his own deficit cutting committee, extending Bush tax cuts among other items, leading to debt levels not seen since WWII

1) That is a fact
2) When Bush came in and at the start of his first full fiscal year (September 2001) the Debt was at 5.8 trillion. When he left, at the end of his last fiscal year (September 2009) the Debt was at 11.9 trillion dollars. This represents about a 107% increase. The debt has increased by about 37% in Obama's four years. Nobody who knows anything about US government financing would say that the October 2008 through September 2009 was Obama debt, the budget was already in place and most funding decisions were made long before he took office. Most people credit or blame the outgoing President for the budgetary decisions that appear to be on the incoming President's watch, this is because that reflects the reality of budgetary practice in Washington.
3) Just false, see above.
4) Not sure what you are talking about here, overall debt? debt to GDP? seems confusing.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

If you can, you would.

He did. You're just not willing to accept it.