Comments on: Making Heads And Tails Of The CBO Budget Numbers http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/ A blog about politics. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:04:37 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: The REAL STORY behind Debt, fiscal responsibility and taxes. - Politics and Other Controversies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 7 - City-Data Forum http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-3/#comment-135000 The REAL STORY behind Debt, fiscal responsibility and taxes. - Politics and Other Controversies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 7 - City-Data Forum Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:57:39 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-135000 [...] Recently there was a poster that was so misinformed that this individual actually thought more taxes (a source of national revenue) would increase the annual deficit, which does not make sense as being a source of revenue, taxes decrease debt which Gipper & Senior both understood, though among current right wingers (and the general American public as well), this knowledge has been lost. This article hopefully helps clear things up as some people, perhaps deliberately, conflate short term with long tern deficits, which can be misleading to the public on what policies are needed at a particular point of time. Making Heads And Tails Of The CBO Budget Numbers [...] [...] Recently there was a poster that was so misinformed that this individual actually thought more taxes (a source of national revenue) would increase the annual deficit, which does not make sense as being a source of revenue, taxes decrease debt which Gipper & Senior both understood, though among current right wingers (and the general American public as well), this knowledge has been lost. This article hopefully helps clear things up as some people, perhaps deliberately, conflate short term with long tern deficits, which can be misleading to the public on what policies are needed at a particular point of time. Making Heads And Tails Of The CBO Budget Numbers [...]

]]> By: Re: The Same Old Recovery :: Swampland - TIME.com http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-3/#comment-53016 Re: The Same Old Recovery :: Swampland - TIME.com Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:46:47 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-53016 [...] merit than opposing short-term stimulus spending over deficit concerns. (More on the differences here.) These are different questions that should be considered [...] [...] merit than opposing short-term stimulus spending over deficit concerns. (More on the differences here.) These are different questions that should be considered [...]

]]> By: nathan7777 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-3/#comment-52262 nathan7777 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:11:04 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52262 <i>There's no danger to anyone from people like Rustydog's rants. In fact, there is an enormous benefit to the readership here, because they can see in its full expression what movement conservatives' arguments are really all about. CNN doesn't get Rustydog to participate in their televised discussions, they get the people who act as respectable fronts for people like him. Meet The Press doesn't include Rustydog in their roundtable discussions, they include his spokespeople --Newt Gingrich or Eric Cantor-- and so the public never gets to hear from the real right.</i> . The public can hear from the real right all they please just by watching Fox News or listening to conservative talk radio. Those formats codify what happens when the margin is accepted and only the truly vile stuff gets rebuked, and it just gets worse as the boundaries of acceptability are constantly pushed further and further out. There's no danger to anyone from people like Rustydog's rants. In fact, there is an enormous benefit to the readership here, because they can see in its full expression what movement conservatives' arguments are really all about. CNN doesn't get Rustydog to participate in their televised discussions, they get the people who act as respectable fronts for people like him. Meet The Press doesn't include Rustydog in their roundtable discussions, they include his spokespeople --Newt Gingrich or Eric Cantor-- and so the public never gets to hear from the real right.
.
The public can hear from the real right all they please just by watching Fox News or listening to conservative talk radio. Those formats codify what happens when the margin is accepted and only the truly vile stuff gets rebuked, and it just gets worse as the boundaries of acceptability are constantly pushed further and further out.

]]> By: nathan7777 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-3/#comment-52250 nathan7777 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:52:51 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52250 Stuart: . I disagree with your characterization that moderation is an existential threat to free exchange on Swampland. Rusty's comment was obviously racist, and moderation would mean removing only what Rusty had typed in bold. There is no need to censure him entirely. . I may have over-reached when I called for deletion of any comment deemed "offensive"; racism is surely offensive but not all offensive comments are racist. I was merely calling for the line item deletion of racial slurs or racial characterizations. . Obviously, what is and isn't racially offensive is awash in gray, and moderator wars can surely result from an over-zealous moderation policy, but just as racially tinged commentary is not acceptable in any respectable academic forum, it should not be acceptable here. . In fact, refusing to moderate can be just as destructive as intensive moderation. Here's how: . There are two sides to the internet. One is the ultimate revealer of character, a bastion that enables the weak and slimy to cower behind its wall of anonymity and hurl epithets and insults that they would never dare say in public. The other is the ultimate repository of information and forum for free discussion. Note how both of these sides are mutually exclusive and conflict with each other. . When encountering trolls or outbursts (like the non-racist part of Rusty's comment) that disrupt the free exchange of ideas, I think you will agree that the best method of dealing with it is to ignore it or take a swipe a leave. Don't feed the trolls. . Ignoring racial slurs, however, can lead to a passive appeasement or a weak acceptance of racial commentary. How many times are you going to call out a commentor for posting racially offensive remarks before you just get tired of it and ignore him? And when you start to ignore racism, it melds into the background and becomes part of the noise at which point it ceases to evoke anger and becomes accepted as a part of the scenery: "Oh don't worry, it's just racist Rusty. He does this all the time." . That's not the way to treat racism. It is never acceptable, and it should always be admonished. To avoid a tacit acceptance of racial commentary, boundaries must be set and enforced. Admonishment outside of the internet is an effective means of coercing a change in behavior; but behind that wall of anonymity, trolls will never stop trolling and racists will never stop spewing racism. Stuart:
.
I disagree with your characterization that moderation is an existential threat to free exchange on Swampland. Rusty's comment was obviously racist, and moderation would mean removing only what Rusty had typed in bold. There is no need to censure him entirely.
.
I may have over-reached when I called for deletion of any comment deemed "offensive"; racism is surely offensive but not all offensive comments are racist. I was merely calling for the line item deletion of racial slurs or racial characterizations.
.
Obviously, what is and isn't racially offensive is awash in gray, and moderator wars can surely result from an over-zealous moderation policy, but just as racially tinged commentary is not acceptable in any respectable academic forum, it should not be acceptable here.
.
In fact, refusing to moderate can be just as destructive as intensive moderation. Here's how:
.
There are two sides to the internet. One is the ultimate revealer of character, a bastion that enables the weak and slimy to cower behind its wall of anonymity and hurl epithets and insults that they would never dare say in public. The other is the ultimate repository of information and forum for free discussion. Note how both of these sides are mutually exclusive and conflict with each other.
.
When encountering trolls or outbursts (like the non-racist part of Rusty's comment) that disrupt the free exchange of ideas, I think you will agree that the best method of dealing with it is to ignore it or take a swipe a leave. Don't feed the trolls.
.
Ignoring racial slurs, however, can lead to a passive appeasement or a weak acceptance of racial commentary. How many times are you going to call out a commentor for posting racially offensive remarks before you just get tired of it and ignore him? And when you start to ignore racism, it melds into the background and becomes part of the noise at which point it ceases to evoke anger and becomes accepted as a part of the scenery: "Oh don't worry, it's just racist Rusty. He does this all the time."
.
That's not the way to treat racism. It is never acceptable, and it should always be admonished. To avoid a tacit acceptance of racial commentary, boundaries must be set and enforced. Admonishment outside of the internet is an effective means of coercing a change in behavior; but behind that wall of anonymity, trolls will never stop trolling and racists will never stop spewing racism.

]]> By: strong7thgenspirit http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-3/#comment-52088 strong7thgenspirit Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:51:16 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52088 Not to distract, or detract from any of your various points or comments...but there is only one real indicator in this artical that should be garnishing everones full and undivided attention: ''Obama's budget will produce $9,300,000,000,000 (of $9.3 trillion) worth of red ink for the U.S. Treasury between 2010 and 2019. That is $2,300,000,000,000 ($2.3 trillion) worse than White House bean counters had predicted when they wrote the budget, mainly because the economy has gotten much worse since they did their work.'' I am a #s person, 2.3 X 4 = 9.2 so they are telling that the price in dollars is going to quadruple between now and 2019. Prices quadrupling basicly means that what now costs 1 will cost 4...so they are actually saying that the value of the UDS is going to drop to less then 25% of where it is now. They have just stated what they approximate the inflation of the dollar to be between when the last estimat was made and when the 'new plan' culmanates in 2019. Free advice, if i were you i would secure whatever finances you already have,invest in a little gold,get some financial instruments, negotiable ones of cours,if you must invest walmart stocks will at least hold steady, then calm down, relax, and wait this out. As soon as they reinstate Glass,Stegel and they let the realestate market go 'belly up' )as they should have done in the first place)so that private investors can reverse the morgage market collapse,the fundamental principles that were put in place to make the U.S. a strong and steady will act in a 'cause & effect' reaction, and the finacial market will build itself back up on the foundation of the realestate market. Not saying it wont be easy, but even at the pace the 'new-old deal' is now moving, it wont be enough to throw off the natural economic course set in place over the last 200 years. Just remeber in two years there will be another chance to vote, and the new polititions coming in will no doubt be the ones that run in opposition to this tax,spend,lend mentality that is now in DC, their way of doing things is already passe...they just are too busy "yes"ing to each other to notice that we the people are not impressed. Not to distract, or detract from any of your various points or comments...but there is only one real indicator in this artical that should be garnishing everones full and undivided attention:

''Obama's budget will produce $9,300,000,000,000 (of $9.3 trillion) worth of red ink for the U.S. Treasury between 2010 and 2019. That is $2,300,000,000,000 ($2.3 trillion) worse than White House bean counters had predicted when they wrote the budget, mainly because the economy has gotten much worse since they did their work.''

I am a #s person, 2.3 X 4 = 9.2 so they are telling that the price in dollars is going to quadruple between now and 2019.

Prices quadrupling basicly means that what now costs 1 will cost 4...so they are actually saying that the value of the UDS is going to drop to less then 25% of where it is now. They have just stated what they approximate the inflation of the dollar to be between when the last estimat was made and when the 'new plan' culmanates in 2019.

Free advice, if i were you i would secure whatever finances you already have,invest in a little gold,get some financial instruments, negotiable ones of cours,if you must invest walmart stocks will at least hold steady, then calm down, relax, and wait this out. As soon as they reinstate Glass,Stegel and they let the realestate market go 'belly up' )as they should have done in the first place)so that private investors can reverse the morgage market collapse,the fundamental principles that were put in place to make the U.S. a strong and steady will act in a 'cause & effect' reaction, and the finacial market will build itself back up on the foundation of the realestate market. Not saying it wont be easy, but even at the pace the 'new-old deal' is now moving, it wont be enough to throw off the natural economic course set in place over the last 200 years. Just remeber in two years there will be another chance to vote, and the new polititions coming in will no doubt be the ones that run in opposition to this tax,spend,lend mentality that is now in DC, their way of doing things is already passe...they just are too busy "yes"ing to each other to notice that we the people are not impressed.

]]> By: rose83 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-2/#comment-52076 rose83 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:28:10 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52076 Sorry for the late reply (Duplicity is a lot of fun. And all that PR about the competition to be "the next Julia Roberts" was delusional.) . <i>Instead I'm saying that we should not be appealing to Time's moderators to make the place worse, i.e. to use their perfectly legitimate right to censor whatever they think is controversial or would impact negatively on their brand. . If the liberal principle of the matter seems esoteric to you, Rose, then think about what happens if appeals for moderation succeed in this instance, and then somebody else finds commentary in one of Joe Klein's courageous Israel/Palestine threads "anti-Semetic" and offensive (as is there right, of course), and appeals to Time for deletion? Imagine the "even-handed approach to moderation" that is the most likely outcome of that escalation. It's called "moderator wars", and it's deadly to places like this one, even if your side wins in the short term.</i> . I actually agree with all that, which is why I don't think Time should remove Rusty's comment. But I don't see this as a First Amendment issue, and I do see this as a gray area where people can legitimately disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to see rusty's discourse as harmful. I'm not sure I'm the best person to make that argument, because I fundamentally disagree with censorship for very practical reasons, such as the Israel/Palestine commentary example you cite. . So to clarify, I'm not actually disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of people who disagree with us as "so-called liberals." Sorry for the late reply (Duplicity is a lot of fun. And all that PR about the competition to be "the next Julia Roberts" was delusional.)
.
Instead I'm saying that we should not be appealing to Time's moderators to make the place worse, i.e. to use their perfectly legitimate right to censor whatever they think is controversial or would impact negatively on their brand.
.
If the liberal principle of the matter seems esoteric to you, Rose, then think about what happens if appeals for moderation succeed in this instance, and then somebody else finds commentary in one of Joe Klein's courageous Israel/Palestine threads "anti-Semetic" and offensive (as is there right, of course), and appeals to Time for deletion? Imagine the "even-handed approach to moderation" that is the most likely outcome of that escalation. It's called "moderator wars", and it's deadly to places like this one, even if your side wins in the short term.
.
I actually agree with all that, which is why I don't think Time should remove Rusty's comment. But I don't see this as a First Amendment issue, and I do see this as a gray area where people can legitimately disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to see rusty's discourse as harmful. I'm not sure I'm the best person to make that argument, because I fundamentally disagree with censorship for very practical reasons, such as the Israel/Palestine commentary example you cite.
.
So to clarify, I'm not actually disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of people who disagree with us as "so-called liberals."

]]> By: shepherdwong http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-2/#comment-52066 shepherdwong Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:06:02 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52066 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html

]]> By: shepherdwong http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-2/#comment-52065 shepherdwong Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:04:01 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52065 <i>"...I asked you originally to consider your role: would you be a vessel for good propaganda (confidence) or bad propaganda (fear, uncertainty and doubt)?"</i> . I'm not at all sure that a little fear-inducing "propaganda" would necessarily be "bad propaganda". The trouble is, we are being made to fear the wrong thing: deficits. Good, fear-inducing propaganda would start by telling us what are the real threats and the good confidence-inducing kind would explain what can realistically be done about them and <a>what that would cost <i>in deficit spending</i>.</a> . Considering the journalistic horror show we witnessed for the past week, I'm not holding my breath. "...I asked you originally to consider your role: would you be a vessel for good propaganda (confidence) or bad propaganda (fear, uncertainty and doubt)?"
.
I'm not at all sure that a little fear-inducing "propaganda" would necessarily be "bad propaganda". The trouble is, we are being made to fear the wrong thing: deficits. Good, fear-inducing propaganda would start by telling us what are the real threats and the good confidence-inducing kind would explain what can realistically be done about them and what that would cost in deficit spending.
.
Considering the journalistic horror show we witnessed for the past week, I'm not holding my breath.

]]> By: Paul Dirks http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-2/#comment-52064 Paul Dirks Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:02:07 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52064 Let me chime in to absolutely defend Rusty's first amendment right to post here. As SZ points out, if he didn't feel free to spew in forums such as these then the self instant discrediting process wouldn't play itself out. If Rusty thought he needed to chose his words carefully or risk deletion, then the truly ridiculous nature of his worldview might be less apparent. . Also, the fact that there's no one here but us humans suggests that there is no one more or less qualified to judge what viewpoint crosses the line. Even what words are considered obscene have shifted in my lifetime. . Just be advised that I will always refer to him as Racist Rusty and I will always have links at the ready in case anyone doubts the characterization. Let me chime in to absolutely defend Rusty's first amendment right to post here. As SZ points out, if he didn't feel free to spew in forums such as these then the self instant discrediting process wouldn't play itself out. If Rusty thought he needed to chose his words carefully or risk deletion, then the truly ridiculous nature of his worldview might be less apparent.
.
Also, the fact that there's no one here but us humans suggests that there is no one more or less qualified to judge what viewpoint crosses the line. Even what words are considered obscene have shifted in my lifetime.
.
Just be advised that I will always refer to him as Racist Rusty and I will always have links at the ready in case anyone doubts the characterization.

]]> By: stuartzechman http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/comment-page-2/#comment-52048 stuartzechman Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:23:47 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=11596#comment-52048 Rose: . Thanks for your thoughts. . <i>I support Time's right to delete comments it deems offensive. </i> . <i>Time is not violating the First Amendment by refusing to print Amy Goodman.</i> . Part of the reason why we liberals are different from libertarian conservatives is that we understand that the government isn't the only actor with the power to restrict individual rights like the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment-derived right to privacy --corporations have that power as well, and they must be deterred in order for a healthy balance to exist. . That said, I'm not saying that Time doesn't have the right to delete comments. They are perfectly within their rights to delete any comment they like, including all of my criticism of Michael Scherer's reporting methods. It will be a worse place for it, but they own the joint. . Instead I'm saying that <i>we</i> should not be appealing to Time's moderators to make the place worse, i.e. to use their perfectly legitimate right to censor whatever they think is controversial or would impact negatively on their brand. . If the liberal principle of the matter seems esoteric to you, Rose, then think about what happens if appeals for moderation succeed in this instance, and then somebody else finds commentary in one of Joe Klein's courageous Israel/Palestine threads "anti-Semetic" and offensive (as is there right, of course), and appeals to Time for deletion? Imagine the "even-handed approach to moderation" that is the most likely outcome of that escalation. It's called "moderator wars", and it's deadly to places like this one, even if your side wins in the short term. . We should be working to encourage Time to <strong>expand</strong> its forum (which is where Amy Goodman comes in), not to restrict expression to that which everyone finds the least offensive. I'm not contesting Time's right to do so, I'm challenging the demands for moderation of "offensive posts" by commentary, on principled (I'm a member of the NYCLU) and practical (I've been around a lot of online forums since the middle '90s) grounds. . In any case, I really didn't mean to get us off of the topic by responding to the "Hey moderator! Delete that guy's comments!" call, Rose. Rustydog's offensive language is thoroughly interwoven into his criticism of the deficit and calls for Obama's impeachment, and it's important that everyone (not just those on RedState) see how bogus those arguments are (and the racist subtext to some of them). . If you'd like, you may have the last word, Rose, so that we can get back to a discussion of the multi-trillion dollar deficit proposal. Rose:
.
Thanks for your thoughts.
.
I support Time's right to delete comments it deems offensive.
.
Time is not violating the First Amendment by refusing to print Amy Goodman.
.
Part of the reason why we liberals are different from libertarian conservatives is that we understand that the government isn't the only actor with the power to restrict individual rights like the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment-derived right to privacy --corporations have that power as well, and they must be deterred in order for a healthy balance to exist.
.
That said, I'm not saying that Time doesn't have the right to delete comments. They are perfectly within their rights to delete any comment they like, including all of my criticism of Michael Scherer's reporting methods. It will be a worse place for it, but they own the joint.
.
Instead I'm saying that we should not be appealing to Time's moderators to make the place worse, i.e. to use their perfectly legitimate right to censor whatever they think is controversial or would impact negatively on their brand.
.
If the liberal principle of the matter seems esoteric to you, Rose, then think about what happens if appeals for moderation succeed in this instance, and then somebody else finds commentary in one of Joe Klein's courageous Israel/Palestine threads "anti-Semetic" and offensive (as is there right, of course), and appeals to Time for deletion? Imagine the "even-handed approach to moderation" that is the most likely outcome of that escalation. It's called "moderator wars", and it's deadly to places like this one, even if your side wins in the short term.
.
We should be working to encourage Time to expand its forum (which is where Amy Goodman comes in), not to restrict expression to that which everyone finds the least offensive. I'm not contesting Time's right to do so, I'm challenging the demands for moderation of "offensive posts" by commentary, on principled (I'm a member of the NYCLU) and practical (I've been around a lot of online forums since the middle '90s) grounds.
.
In any case, I really didn't mean to get us off of the topic by responding to the "Hey moderator! Delete that guy's comments!" call, Rose. Rustydog's offensive language is thoroughly interwoven into his criticism of the deficit and calls for Obama's impeachment, and it's important that everyone (not just those on RedState) see how bogus those arguments are (and the racist subtext to some of them).
.
If you'd like, you may have the last word, Rose, so that we can get back to a discussion of the multi-trillion dollar deficit proposal.

]]>