Will Beck run off the Teabaggers now?

[GreNME]

Lurker already addressed this. He's not even on the tea party side, but he recognizes how flawed your argument is.

Except that Bush increased the deficit in pretty much the same scale that Obama has so far:

In fact, Reagan also did practically the same. Funny how perspective shows how silly confirmation bias really is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Good explanation to you, not me. I'll point out why in a minute.

You're wrong. I'll point out why in a minute.

Now you're clearly making post-hoc justifications. You see, during the Bush administration and before Obama was even elected into office, it was under our previous administration that the deficit was the highest it had ever been. Unless you're suggesting the Tea Party is made up of time travelers-- and I certainly doubt you'd make such a silly argument-- then your suggestion that because the current deficit is larger by far than the previous administration's deficit would still equally apply to the Bush administration. While you seem to think that Lurker's explanation provides sufficient perspective, the reality is that the Bush spending even before 2004 had already gotten to the point where the deficit had practically quadrupled as well.

There's ALWAYS a breaking point for mass public reaction against something people don't like. And it ALWAYS occurs when some threshold is reached. The threshold has apparently been reached under Obama, and not under Bush. Now, if it had happened while Obama's deficit numbers were lower than Bush's, then we would have reason to be suspicious. But that's not what happened. The deficit just kept going up and up. No time travel is necessary: the threshold was reached, and people reacted. Bad luck for Obama.

The hypocrisy I'm pointing out is clearly shown in graphs like this one which show how the description Lurker gave about going from 80 to 85 degrees during the Bush administration was simply not accurate.

Let's take a slightly larger view, shall we?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would get worried about what happened to the deficit in 2009.

I love how so many folks here will rail against quote-mining from conspiracy theorists and then engage in the same crap themselves.

You asked for quotes, GreNME. But it seems you never actually wanted them.

Can you be intellectually honest for once, please?.

I'm not the one asking for something I don't actually want. But while we're on the subject of intellectual honesty, can you acknowledge that 2009's budget deficit really was far worse than anything that happened under Bush?

 

[johnny karate]

Lurker already addressed this. He's not even on the tea party side, but he recognizes how flawed your argument is.

And GreNME recognizes how flawed yours is. Arguing by proxy is fun!

And how would you describe these folks?

Is this the part where I show you isolated incidents of racism at Tea Party rallies to prove the Tea Party is racist, or can we just agree that this method of argumentation is idiotic and move on?

 

[GreNME]

Ziggy, you claimed that the whole "quadrupled the deficit" thing was the threshold, and when it's pointed out that the same thing happened under Bush you hand-wave and actually use anti-Democratic rants as your evidence that people opposed Bush's spending. You're not even trying to see your own hubris at this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggy, you claimed that the whole "quadrupled the deficit" thing was the threshold, and when it's pointed out that the same thing happened under Bush

The same thing didn't happen under Bush. The threshold isn't about relative fractional increases (why would it be? going from no deficit to $1 deficit is an infinity-fold increase, but nobody would care much), it's about the actual deficit level. Which is much higher under Obama than it ever was under Bush. Is that honestly so hard to understand?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this the part where I show you isolated incidents of racism at Tea Party rallies to prove the Tea Party is racist, or can we just agree that this method of argumentation is idiotic and move on?

Indeed: let's drop the whole notion of dismissing arguments because the people making them are "self-entitled". I'm glad you've come around on this point.

 

[Upchurch]

The same thing didn't happen under Bush. The threshold isn't about relative increases (why would it be? going from no deficit to $1 deficit is an infinity-fold increase, but nobody would care much), it's about the actual deficit level.

Well, since "quadruple the deficit" is a relative term, you would agree that it is nonsense to use that as a complaint?

What, then, is the numeric value of the threshold you mention and how was it calculated?

(I ask these questions rhetorically. Zig has long since put me on ignore because I kept calling him on his assumptions. Silly me. Careful, GreNME, or you might be next)

 

[Lurker]

How was it calculated? Are you being a wiseacre here?

Public opinion decides these thresholds. Nobody sits down and decides at what specific point the public will become upset. I would imagine each person has a point (influenced by their peers and media I grant). If we look at a sampling of people we could come up with a mean of some sort and use that as the "bright line" you wish to identify but clearly there is a distribution.

 

[Upchurch]

How was it calculated? Are you being a wiseacre here?

A little bit. But if it is not a relative number, it must be absolute. That suggests that there are factors that determine what that threshold is.

Public opinion decides these thresholds.

That's relative.

Nobody sits down and decides at what specific point the public will become upset.

Which makes talking about a threshold as if it were a real thing bogus. Complaining about Obama's budget because it quadruples the budget is a weasel word way of saying "public opinion" without making it sound as arbitrary and fickle as public opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, since "quadruple the deficit" is a relative term, you would agree that it is nonsense to use that as a complaint?

Of course it's nonsense. But search the thread: you will find that GreNME is the only person who talked about a quadrupled deficit until this post of yours.

 

[johnny karate]

Indeed: let's drop the whole notion of dismissing arguments because the people making them are "self-entitled". I'm glad you've come around on this point.

I think you may have quoted the wrong post, as this response makes no sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you may have quoted the wrong post, as this response makes no sense.

That's because it requires that you actually remember the chain of conversation farther back than one post. Use the little link button on the quotes, it can help refresh your memory.

 

[Upchurch]

Of course it's nonsense. But search the thread: you will find that GreNME is the only person who talked about a quadrupled deficit until this post of yours.

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.


Except that you're wrong:

Four times more.

Fixing Bush's deficit by making it four times bigger is like fixing Bush's foreign policy by invading eight more countries.

 

[johnny karate]

What, then, is the numeric value of the threshold you mention and how was it calculated?

I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect a calendar was used.

 

[Ziggurat]

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.


Except that you're wrong:

Go figure: a search for "quadruple" didn't turn up those posts. Live and learn.

So, was this oversight of not noticing SoT's post worse than you not noticing that I never made the argument you tried to challenged me on?

 

[johnny karate]

The first Tea Party protests began in February 2009, a couple of weeks after Obama was sworn in. One of the first targets of protest was the TARP bailout, which had actually been passed into law in 2008 by the Bush administration. Oddly enough, there were no Tea Party rallies protesting TARP until after Obama took office.

Do the advocates of the "threshold" argument write this off as coincidence?

 

[johnny karate]

That's because it requires that you actually remember the chain of conversation farther back than one post. Use the little link button on the quotes, it can help refresh your memory.

Oh, I see... you were attempting to be clever. But it was such a clumsy attempt that I misconstrued it as an oversight on your part.

Honest mistake.

 

[Upchurch]

So, was this oversight of not noticing SoT's post worse than you not noticing that I never made the argument you tried to challenged me on?

Oooo... recursive straw man arguments! Fun!

I didn't accuse you of making the "quadrupling the deficit" argument. I merely asked you if you agreed that SoT's argument was nonsensical.

What I challenged you on was the actual value of the threshold you mentioned and how you determined it.



And on a side note, I'm glad to see that you are once again open to hearing from people who challenge your beliefs. Good for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

The first Tea Party protests began in February 2009, a couple of weeks after Obama was sworn in. One of the first targets of protest was the TARP bailout, which had actually been passed into law in 2008 by the Bush administration. Oddly enough, there were no Tea Party rallies protesting TARP until after Obama took office.

Do the advocates of the "threshold" argument write this off as coincidence?

It's probably not a total coincidence. Part of it is that Bush was a lame duck. What good would protests have done at that point? If you're going to protest, you might as well protest against someone who might be susceptible to pressure. Like, say, a newly elected politician....

But I wouldn't be surprised if party affiliation also played a role in affecting people's tolerance thresholds. Is that unfair? Perhaps. Does that negate the validity of the complaint? Of course not. Is it peculiar to tea partiers? Hell no. Just look at the democrat's complaints about deficits under Bush. In that case, of course, the threshold for their own guy has proven to be far higher.

So regardless of what you think about the motives of the tea partiers (which, really, is just an ad hominem attack), the complaint that government spending is out of control and unsustainable must be addressed on its merits. And it has obvious merits, even if you don't agree with the conclusion or the prescription of the tea party.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't accuse you of making the "quadrupling the deficit" argument. I merely asked you if you agreed that SoT's argument was nonsensical.

Why on earth would you do that immediately after I had already said it was nonsense? Did you not believe me?