Sen. Bernie Sanders introduces Estate Tax bill, commentary

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
No, you're just an idiot. Which party's president last balanced the budget again? How about the time before that?

Presidents dont balance or write budgets. The senate does. Now, which party was responsible for writing the last balanced budget?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Presidents dont balance or write budgets. The senate does. Now, which party was responsible for writing the last balanced budget?

Oh brother, you're not *this* bad, usually, blackangst.

First, it's the House, not the Senate, who initiates all budget bills. The Senate votes on the ones the House passes.

Second, welcome to America. To expand on the 1 page summary you got on the trip here, the President has enormous influence on the budget.

In fact, the President writes the draft budget that the House uses as its start - it's his departments who write up recommended budgets that make up the draft, and it's his policies that decide whether the draft has more or less for war, for education, or whatever else his policies are.

It's why the budgets have a high correlation with the President they're under.

For example, under 12 years of Republicans - Reagan and Bush - we had unrelenting high deficits, who allowed for political gain put on the tab of future Americans. This includes under the same Democratic congresses at times that had previously passed far smaller deficits.

Then we had 8 years of Clinton - and while you would expect some variation year to year, you didn't really get is - it's almost a straight line down on the deficit every year, the first two under a Democratic House and the last six a Republican House. And then, when the second Bush took office, the deficits - under about the same Republican congress - consistently shot way back up under his policies, year after year.

If you would get a little bit of a clue, which is too much to ask obviously, you would see the large role the president has in shaping the budget.

And not read us high school books on the system that oversimplify it.

Look at a graph of the deficit over the last 30 years, and the 8 years of decline under Clinton leading to balanced budget before it shot up again *under the Republicans controlling all branches*, and tell me with a straight face it was the House that really balanced the budget and not the President having anything to do with it. And oh by the way, the last time before that, was a Democratic President *and* Democratic majority if not super-majority in the House (and Senate).

Now, some factors were the tech bubble under Clinton versus the recession under Bush - but these were not nearly enough to explain the change in deficit. The 'opposition' theory - that different parties in the House and Presidency cancel out each others' spending desires - is a factor as well but again does not explain it, see the first two years of Clinton with a Democratic congress reducing the deficit both years just as much as the next six.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Idiot. You write another post that pathetic and dishonest, don't expect a response.

Others have exposed the ridiculousness of your post, so I'm just going to laugh at this statement. It's just another "I've been shown wrong, so I'm not going to respond to you." Do your ears hurt from putting your fingers in them so much whilst shouting "la la la la la"?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
You more or less consistently come across as some sort of anti-government libertarian. If you were just playing devil's advocate, you'd argue the big government side of the equation at times, but IIRC you never have.

Then again, if it's all a big act, as you claim it is - that you're often arguing against your true viewpoint - then you are nothing more than a self-described attention seeking troll. So there you have it - your ideology is either quite transparent in spite of your claim to opaqueness, or else you're a troll.

Incidentally, you weaseled out of responding to Craig's points by in essence disowning whatever you previously said. Biased as Craig may be, he seems to put a fair amount of time into his posts, and you shouldn't be wasting his time, or anyone else's, by proferring faux viewpoints just to observe people's reactions. Your faux viewpoints are of no more value than anyone's real viewpoints, except that they are offerred in bad faith. Get over yourself.

- wolf
So you define a troll as someone capable of arguing multiple sides of an argument, who doesn't stick to party lines on every issue, and sometimes argues for the sake of educating himself or others? Really? Did it ever occur to your ego that perhaps I actually changed my mind based on Craig's arguments, that I'm not here to win a debate, or that I might actually consider other peoples' reasons when formulating my own? Sorry I don't fit into the mold that you think every forum poster should, or that I don't have the right to question others as I see fit. I suggest if you want everyone to play according to your rules that you utilize your towering intellect to take over a small country and rule it with an iron fist. Until then, piss off.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
So you define a troll as someone capable of arguing multiple sides of an argument, who doesn't stick to party lines on every issue, and sometimes argues for the sake of educating himself or others? Really? Did it ever occur to your ego that perhaps I actually changed my mind based on Craig's arguments, that I'm not here to win a debate, or that I might actually consider other peoples' reasons when formulating my own? Sorry I don't fit into the mold that you think every forum poster should, or that I don't have the right to question others as I see fit. I suggest if you want everyone to play according to your rules that you utilize your towering intellect to take over a small country and rule it with an iron fist. Until then, piss off.

I suggest a troll is someone who purposefully argues a position they don't believe in just to see what kind of reaction they get. It seems to me you admitted that in your prior post. If I misunderstood what you wrote, then fine.

- wolf
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I suggest a troll is someone who purposefully argues a position they don't believe in just to see what kind of reaction they get. It seems to me you admitted that in your prior post. If I misunderstood what you wrote, then fine.

- wolf
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I elicited quite a few pretty solid ideas using this method in this thread alone. If you don't like my methods, I highly recommend pissing off and/or dying in a fire.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I'm not sure if you noticed, but I elicited quite a few pretty solid ideas using this method in this thread alone. If you don't like my methods, I highly recommend pissing off and/or dying in a fire.

Pissing off and dying in a fire, eh? Bit touchy today, aren't you?

- wolf
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Pissing off and dying in a fire, eh? Bit touchy today, aren't you?

- wolf
I don't like people who tell me how to think because no one would have the audacity to do that unless they thought they were better than me. So you're either actually better than me or a douchebag who thinks he's better than me. I'm fairly certain I've contributed a lot more to this thread than you have, which makes me think: who is the real troll here? That narrows down the two options i presented above pretty quickly.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I don't like people who tell me how to think because no one would have the audacity to do that unless they thought they were better than me. So you're either actually better than me or a douchebag who thinks he's better than me. I'm fairly certain I've contributed a lot more to this thread than you have, which makes me think: who is the real troll here? That narrows down the two options i presented above pretty quickly.

Did I tell you how to think? Perusing my post, it had more to do with your behavior, that of the self-confessed practice of arguing positions that you didn't really believe in. Perhaps I've wasted too much of my time in the past debating people who really didn't believe in what they were arguing. It seems to me that people should be forthright in a discussion and say what they believe. Even now, you're saying things like, "Did it ever occur to your ego that perhaps I actually changed my mind based on Craig's arguments...." Well, did you actually change your mind as a result of Craig's arguments? Why should we have to guess?

- wolf
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Did I tell you how to think? Perusing my post, it had more to do with your behavior, that of the self-confessed practice of arguing positions that you didn't really believe in. Perhaps I've wasted too much of my time in the past debating people who really didn't believe in what they were arguing. It seems to me that people should be forthright in a discussion and say what they believe. Even now, you're saying things like, "Did it ever occur to your ego that perhaps I actually changed my mind based on Craig's arguments...." Well, did you actually change your mind as a result of Craig's arguments? Why should we have to guess?

- wolf
Why does it matter if I changed my mind or not? Why does it matter what my position really is?