Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What's really repugnant and evil is what Conservatives in the USA want. They're tripping over themselves to ensure that gay couples get NO benefits.> While that may be true of some conservatives, I don't believe it's true of a majority. I think most conservatives are perfectly fine with private companies offering benefits to gay couples.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<As filtered through Cato's lense.>> <No. The baseline is from the 1995 budget projections.> But that's not how budgets actually get enacted. Cato took the projections as though they represented reality, which they don't. Garbage in, garbage out. <<They took one year and projected from there, rather than recognizing that budgets will change EVERY year based on new realities, new priorities, new political considerations and favors and pork, new realizations of what's going on with the economy, etc.>> <Just as you're not taking into account the cumulative effect on Clinton's budget proposals of the Republicans refusing to spend as much as he wanted.> You weren't taking into effect the reality of the budget process itself. I wasn't taking into account the very small difference between Clinton's proposed budgets and the enacted ones. <<The last time we had a balanced budget we had a Democrat (I don't consider him a liberal, really) president proposing the budgets.>> <And we had those budgets being cut by a Republican congress.> Tomato, tomahto.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What's really repugnant and evil is what Conservatives in the USA want. They're tripping over themselves to ensure that gay couples get NO benefits.>> <While that may be true of some conservatives, I don't believe it's true of a majority. I think most conservatives are perfectly fine with private companies offering benefits to gay couples.> More and more conservatives are coming to that position, but it's worth noting that the American Family Association, for instance, noted the benefits given to gay employees by Disney and Ford as a reason for their (unsuccessful) boycotts against those companies.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Cato took the projections as though they represented reality, which they don't.> They represented the priorities of the Clinton Administration, which was clearly not balancing the budget.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Cato took the projections as though they represented reality, which they don't.>> <They represented the priorities of the Clinton Administration, which was clearly not balancing the budget.> They represented the budget priorities of one year, transposed as though priorities EVER stay the same year to year in any administration. You're grasping at straws again.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They represented the budget priorities of one year, transposed as though priorities EVER stay the same year to year in any administration.> Cato didn't do that, the Clinton administration did. The projections used were the ones included in the proposed 1995 budget.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<They represented the budget priorities of one year, transposed as though priorities EVER stay the same year to year in any administration.>> <Cato didn't do that, the Clinton administration did. The projections used were the ones included in the proposed 1995 budget.> Don't all administrations do that? And then reserve the right to change their minds later? Didn't Bush project the deficit being cut in half by the end of his first term? And instead it grew greatly? The bottom line is what Clinton proposed year by year vs. what Congress approved. This is ultimately what matters, and taking projections that were later altered as though they actually happened is fundamentally dishonest on Cato's part; also on yours for trying to argue that they represent anything real.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Don't all administrations do that?> Yes. Every budget includes projections of future budgets. <Didn't Bush project the deficit being cut in half by the end of his first term?> No, I don't believe that's true. His first budget was proposed after 9/11, when it was certain that revenues had gone down and military spending needed to go up. <And then reserve the right to change their minds later?> Sure. I'm willing to admit that Clinton changed his mind about balancing the budget when it became obvious that Republicans were going to make him. <The bottom line is what Clinton proposed year by year vs. what Congress approved.> And I'm certain that every year, Clinton proposed more than the Congress approved, so it was Congress that gets the credit for balancing the budget.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>>While that may be true of some conservatives, I don't believe it's true of a majority. I think most conservatives are perfectly fine with private companies offering benefits to gay couples.<<< Nonsense. The article below seems reflective of the standard approach taken by conservatives. Such evil people. "(Madison, Wisconsin) The state Senate voted Wednesday to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ban both gay marriage and civil unions. The Senate voted 19-14 after Republicans rejected a series of attempts by Democrats to alter the amendment, including a push to strip the portion pertaining to civil unions. The measure now moves to the Assembly before going to the electorate for a final vote. To amend the state constitution the proposed measure must be approved by consecutive two-year sessions of the Legislature before it can go to voters in a statewide referendum. Lawmakers easily approved the amendment under first consideration last year, and groups on both sides of the debate acknowledge they are likely to approve it again. It is expected the amendment will easily pass the Assembly and appear on a statewide ballot in November." <a href="http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/120705wiscBan.htm" target="_blank">http://www.365gay.com/Newscon0 5/12/120705wiscBan.htm</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh While I don't agree with legislation that bans civil unions, that has nothing to do with private companies offering benefits to gay couples.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Don't all administrations do that?>> <Yes. Every budget includes projections of future budgets.> Exactly. <<Didn't Bush project the deficit being cut in half by the end of his first term?>> <No, I don't believe that's true. His first budget was proposed after 9/11, when it was certain that revenues had gone down and military spending needed to go up.> I'm not sure either. I remember it coming up during the '04 campaign, but I'm not sure if he projected cutting the deficit in half, or if it was just a 2000 campaign promise. I couldn't find the projection on google. <<And then reserve the right to change their minds later?>> <Sure. I'm willing to admit that Clinton changed his mind about balancing the budget when it became obvious that Republicans were going to make him.> That's speculation. The reality is that his budgets varied very little from what Congress accepted. <<The bottom line is what Clinton proposed year by year vs. what Congress approved.>> <And I'm certain that every year, Clinton proposed more than the Congress approved, so it was Congress that gets the credit for balancing the budget.> Since the numbers were so close, why not just admit that (as with all budgets), both branches share the blame and/or credit? Clinton wanted slightly more for discretionary spending, but that's it. His numbers unaltered would have balanced the budget but taken perhaps one more year to do so. And let's get real about how much the 90's congress cut discretionary spending to begin with: not much. And of course in the 2000's with a GOP congress AND a GOP President, discretionary spending has gone UP.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since the numbers were so close, why not just admit that (as with all budgets), both branches share the blame and/or credit?> Because it hasn't been established what "so close" is. A percentage or two can make big difference, given the cumulative effect of baseline budgeting. <His numbers unaltered would have balanced the budget but taken perhaps one more year to do so.> Or 5 or 10. Or never.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Since the numbers were so close, why not just admit that (as with all budgets), both branches share the blame and/or credit?>> <Because it hasn't been established what "so close" is. A percentage or two can make big difference, given the cumulative effect of baseline budgeting.> You originally claimed the numbers were appreciably different. I don't think so. If they were, let's see 'em. <<His numbers unaltered would have balanced the budget but taken perhaps one more year to do so.>> <Or 5 or 10. Or never.> So you admit you don't know.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You originally claimed the numbers were appreciably different.> No, I believe I claimed that the Republicans in Congress should get most of the credit for balancing the budget, rather than Clinton. <So you admit you don't know.> I admit that, with Clinton, you never knew if you could trust what he said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You originally claimed the numbers were appreciably different.>> <No, I believe I claimed that the Republicans in Congress should get most of the credit for balancing the budget, rather than Clinton.> And why should that be the case, unless the numbers were appreciably different? <<So you admit you don't know.>> <I admit that, with Clinton, you never knew if you could trust what he said.> But one always knows Doug will try to deflect an uncomfortable point with a lame remark about Clinton.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And why should that be the case, unless the numbers were appreciably different?> I don't need to know the actual numbers. I can judge based on their actions at the time. The Republicans were the ones who approved budgets that were lower than Clinton's, and it was Clinton who initially vetoed those lower budgets before eventually agreeing to them. It was Clinton who argued against balancing the budget as quickly as the Republicans wanted. <But one always knows Doug will try to deflect an uncomfortable point with a lame remark about Clinton.> You'd have to have a point for it to be uncomfortable or require deflecting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And why should that be the case, unless the numbers were appreciably different?>> <I don't need to know the actual numbers. I can judge based on their actions at the time.> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You don't need to know the facts. You just need to know your prejudices for and against Clinton and the GOP, and that'll do it. Noted. <The Republicans were the ones who approved budgets that were lower than Clinton's, and it was Clinton who initially vetoed those lower budgets before eventually agreeing to them. It was Clinton who argued against balancing the budget as quickly as the Republicans wanted.> How much lower? Where were the areas of disagreement? How were they resolved? Oops, I forgot. You don't need to know the facts or the numbers. You can judge anyway. <<But one always knows Doug will try to deflect an uncomfortable point with a lame remark about Clinton.>> <You'd have to have a point for it to be uncomfortable or require deflecting.> More avoidance.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You don't need to know the facts.> I don't need to know the details. I know the facts. If you know details that undermine my facts, please present them. <How much lower? Where were the areas of disagreement? How were they resolved? Oops, I forgot. You don't need to know the facts or the numbers.> If you know the facts or the numbers, please present them. So far, all you've done is speculate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Again, it was you who insisted that the budgets proposed by Clinton were more than marginally different than the ones accepted by Congress. If you're going to make that claim, it's up to you to present the numbers. Instead, you just try to say you know the "facts" without even knowing the basic numbers. Telling.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You're revising history again, Dabob. You first brought up the claim that there was little difference between the two, in post 25: "From '95 on we had a mixed govenment, but with Clinton proposing the budgets, that the Congress did not appreciably change." And it's you who has not presented any evidence to back up that claim.
