Quote:
Originally Posted by example1
It would be both brave--because it would potentially hurt his popularity--and unlikely.  ...
It went from growing at one rate (3.2) to another rate (4.3)...
Here are two definitions of progressive...Huckabee could be seen as progressive...
They are messed up...
Me neither...
That's funny...
You truly believe...
Where does your cynicism go when it comes to this?
We can agree to disagree ... We can also agree to disagree...
That's not my calculation to make...
YMMV...
All americans. Many changes...
yada yada...
smartass. ...
same here. |
Again, thanks for the detailed response. Hitting only the key points of disagreement:
1) Neither 3.2 nor 4.3 % of GDP/year is a rate of change. Both are rates of expenditure. A rate of change would be the change in % GDP/year, expressed in the units % GDP/year/year.
Let's use the actual figures from both recent administrations.
From 1993-2000, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 3.4% of GDP. The rate of change was [(3.4 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/8 years, or zero. While the dollars spent increased, the increase parallelled GDP growth exactly.
From 2000-2006, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP. The rate of change was [(4.3 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/6 years, or 0.15% GDP/year/year.
Looked at differently, the budget deficit is around 1.9% of GDP (2006 figures). However, 0.9% of that is due to growth in Medicare/Medicaid that's faster than could've been anticipated using Clinton-era stats.
All this isn't a defense of GWB. I've PMed you an extraordinary criticism of Bush's integrity that goes beyond anything harped upon in the mainstream. My point, however, is that President Clinton deserves approximately no credit for balancing the budget, and that references to that work by Obama hurt Obama's credibility.
2) My ideas on gay marriage are hardly laughable. One of the leading contemporary European sociologists, Anthony Giddens, has been writing to the point that same-sex marriage opens up a great cultural unknown for over a decade. There are secular pundits on both the extreme right (George Gilder) and extreme left (Judith Stacey) who predict significant weakening of male-female marriage as an option and an institution. Choosing a highly-respected left-of-center source removed from the American Bible Belt rhetoric and influence, here's a brief quote from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:
Quote:
|
There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect (of gay marriage) will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.
|
Note, also, that I'm neither endorsing nor opposing gay marriage. I'm pointing out that there are viable secular reasons to oppose it--just as there are certainly religious reasons to oppose it and there are also potentially viable reasons to support it.
3) The issue of which Americans should make changes and what changes they should make is too important to be blown off with, "All Americans. Many changes." That can be answered by increasing Social Security taxes to pay for Medicare/Medicaid issues, a horribly regressive scheme that would, however, make the lower middle class of lawful wage earners bear the burden of increasing costs related to the medical needs of those closest to them on the social ladder.
You deserve more than a criticism, though. Here's what I support:
i) The ideas of Democratic Senator Jim Webb articulated in his autobiographical book
Born Fighting, and
ii) Action to bring the Gini Coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient back to its 1950's through 1970's levels of around 35-40. The Gini Coefficient was 46.9 in 2005 according to the US Census Bureau. That's indicative of highly unequal wealth distribution rarely seen in Western Democracies, and I subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government. An immediate first solution would be restoration of pre-Reagan tax rates on the mere top 1% of wage earners.
But I commented earlier on the importance of median vs. mean statistics. Given that five percent of our nation possesses over half of its wealth, I can understand your frustration with use of aggregate GDP or mean household income.
4) The concept that the actions of mankind significantly influence global warming is
not a scientific consensus. Even if it were, unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions would be a highly counterproductive response. Others are challenging you on this--I strongly recommend abandoning that aspect of your position.
But as an aside, remember that my points regarding the uncertainty of humanity's influence on global warming were drawn from your own EPA link. You cannot accurately claim that the US Government or Bush Administration agrees with you--it does not. Furthermore, outside the Bush Administration there are many studies that question the effect of human actions on climate, pointing to climate changes before the last century or two as evidence that the planet has appeared to endure warmer periods in the post-Ice Age timeframe without rapid collapse of global ecosystems.
***
Example1, thank you for sharing your passionate views.