Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Jim Bunning was right!

On February 13, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the "pay as you go" law...along with raising the federal debt ceiling over $14 Trillion.

On March 2, 2010, the Senate voted to waive the law so they could pass emergency funding legislation for unemployment and government workers. Its a measley $10 billion, so what's the harm right?

Jim Bunning has been chastized by nearly every Driveby Media source out there. The Democrats and many Republicans have been attacking the man for several days. Why?

He was trying to make a stand and force the Senate to provide for the funding of this new legislation. That's all. He was just trying to enforce the law that was literally just signed two weeks ago.

But that's what you get with liberals, progressives, power hungry politicians, and vote buyers. They'll talk about fiscal responsibility even while raising the debt ceiling to even more astronomic heights, but then, as you would expect, they throw their own law under the bus.

The ridiculous thing about all this hubbub over Jim Bunning is that we have something in the ballpark of $500Billion still unspent from "stimulus" (waiting to fund Democrat re-election campaigns), we have $200Billion in refunded or unnecessary TARP funds (waiting to fund Democrat re-election campaigns), yet we can't somehow carve out $10 Billion from all that Obama-stash money to fund jobless benefits and government workers for a month?

Its all such a laugh that we take what they say or do seriously at all anymore. These liberals in Washington do not care that they are causing the destruction of the greatest economy on Earth, in fact, its my belief that they REVEL in it's destruction, because it means more people on the unemployment doles, more people turning to government for help, more dependent-class voters to keep them in power forever.

Jim Bunning was one man trying to stand by a simple principle: If you're going to buy something, you'd better have the money for it first. Wow, what a novel concept. I'm actually surprised that there is even one man like him in Washington. We need more like him.


  1. Just a quick question...

    Is this the same Senator Bunning that...

    ...voted to go to war in Iraq without providing funding?

    ...voted to increase the cost of Medicare with the prescription drug plan without providing funding?

    ...voted for the massive spending bill to rebuild the Gulf Coast without providing the funding?

    I understand the argument that we need to balance the budget. However, Scott you call Senator Bunning a man of principle. I guess it is easy to be such a man when you don't have any responsibility.

    Senator Bunning is like all of the other partisans in DC. A hypocrite.

  2. Obama signed a LAW saying that as of FEBRUARY you HAVE to "pay as you go" and then the FIRST time the law can be broken it is! What Bunning did befre isn't right, though point two and three are pretty liberal spending policies, but I think the point is Obama keeps talking this big game about being tough on spending (because that's that's what liberals have to do to get elected, sound conservative) but is really just a true liberal who only cares about taking money from people who won't vote for him and give it to people who will.

  3. I'm curios to see what Bunning's chances of getting reelected are, now that he has left those touched by unemployment out to dry. And to be clear, I am not saying his decision was right or wrong, I am simply suggesting that if his decision was a wise one politically, he would not have been the only one voting against it.

    Also as long as I'm posting, John I find your comment with regards to liberals claiming to be tough on spending as merely a claim not entirely accurate. What right minded person wouldn't want to cut waistful spending, liberal or conservative. And I feel the distinction between the two is what constitutes waistful spending. Your thoughts?

  4. Scott -

    Good point on all the past votes. Certainly most if not all of the congressmen in Washington have been guilty of voting to spend money without providing funding at the time.

    However, my point is that on February 13, 2010, Barack Obama signed into law the "pay as you go" provision that made it law to provide funding for any spending done by the Congress and on the VERY FIRST OPPORTUNITY for a new spending bill, Congress wanted to break the law and spend without providing funding.

    Bunning's past discretions are irrelevant to this argument. I'm not going to say that he is pure as the wind driven snow, but he was absolutely right to demand the spending be paid for.

    The crappy thing about the situation is that we all knew that these furloughed workers were going to get all their pay. Also, they could have easily allocated some funds from unspent TARP and porkulus funds to pay for this legislation that all of them could agree on, but the Democrats WANTED to be able to paint this republican as eeeevil and uncaring. Its total political crap and its what America is absolutely furious about.


    Bunning is retiring at the end of the year. Makes you kinda wonder if TERM LIMITS would be a good thing or not eh?

    Also, to claim that liberals want to be tough on spending is absolutely laughable. While I cannot defend the Republicans in the last few years of Bush 43, his last budget deficit was $400B. Obama's first was $1,400B and his next projected deficit is $1,600B. So yea, I think it is fair to claim liberals don't care about overspending.

  5. Table 1.1

    Before Clinton had a budget surplus from 1998 on through the rest of his presidency, Bush Senior and Ronald Regan failed to balance their budgets through their entire presidency. Furthermore Clinton's budget deficit shrank each year prior to 1998 that he was in office.
    So no I don't think its fair to say liberals don't care about over spending. At least no more then the conservatives have historically demonstrated. Bush rapped up his presidency with a $455 billion dollar budget deficit.

    I acknowledge this as purely speculative, but I recall Obama saying that budgets now are laying down the ground work for budget surpluses down the line.

  6. Andy, do you really believe that it's going to lead to surpluses? I mean there's no credibility with Obama. He's done nothing but lie.

  7. Andy, regarding the historical points you are making, you are demonstrating the fallacy involved with using statistics in many cases.

    Reagan did not balance his budgets. No, but he did increase revenue to the government thru tax cuts and he made some serious cuts in bureacracy. But bear in mind, Reagan spent his presidency gearing up against the Soviets, an arms race which led to their downfall. Also, he had a liberal congress for both terms, and they wanted their spending projects as compromises for Reagan's defense spending. Besides, the deficits under reagan just do not compare to those under Obama.

    Clinton had the huge benefit of being put into the minority party in 1994. He had to play along with the Republicans if he wanted anything. Under the Republican congress, we reformed Medicare, which would have gone a long way to providing for its longterm solvency, but we've got a bunch of liberals who put that spending back in.

    Besides, even at the end of Clinton's presidency, as the economy slipped into recession for the last 3 quarters or so of his admin, even with a so-called balanced budget, we still had lots of debt, and even more importantly, the social security "trust fund" "lockbox" had been totally raided. So you point at one thing and say Clinton had fiscal restraint, but he was spending money that was meant to be allocated for Social Security in order to get that balanced budget.

    And as far as Obama...

    He is proposing spending that the CBO recently came out and said would add $9.7 Trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. He wants to spend 2.6T on healthcare that a vast majority of Americans do not want. He willfully denies and ignores the catastrophically unraveling "man made global warming" hoax so that he can keep pursuing his job-killing "green" cap and trade agenda.

    And he tells you that all of his deficit spending will lead to budget surpluses...

    And you believe him? What will it take for you to realize HE IS LYING?

  8. Scott your response is highly speculative with regards to 'Reagan had a deficit because of a liberal congress, Clinton had a surplus because of a republican congress'. This was a response to an article all about a man who wanted to stop spending money we don't have. I gave you historical facts specifically retaining to the spending of money we don't have and you disregarded it.

    Also give me examples of how obama is less honest than our last president or are other presidential choice. I do feel he is a step in the right direction.

    You don't believe in global warming fine, neither do I, but I don't think its wise to roll the dice on it were wrong. There is legitimate reasons to think it is possible or it would not hold water, and finding concrete unarguable evidence of this process may be an impossible task. Maybe you shouldn't be to quick to call it a hoax because some over ambitous people screwed up.

    We don't call Heaven a hoax. Personally I believe in Heaven and I have my reasons, but I certainly don't have any scientific evidence of it. And I'm not going to live in sin because the lack of scientific evidence.

  9. I'll correct myself...

    Clinton helped his budget worries by slashing defense spending, since that seems to be the only government function unworthy of government spending, per the liberals.

    I'm not disagreeing that the budget was more balanced per se at the end of Clinton's presidency than at the end of Reagan's or Bush 43's, what I'm saying is that there are reasons to support both results. I just wanted to put some context. One of my biggest peeves is the random pointing at random statements and trying to say that one caused the other. Post hoc ergo propter hoc or something...false cause fallacy.

    And I keep giving you one really big example of Obama's dishonesty but you seem to want to ignore it just like all the media and liberals in government, but if I have to offer more examples, I suppose I will.

    Here, take healthcare. Obama has spent over a year telling us that in his healthcare bill, we'll get to keep our private insurance if we want. Wrongo!

    First, he doesn't HAVE A BILL. Until about two weeks ago, he didn't even have an OUTLINE of a bill. So we looked at the only actual bills and in the House bill, it specifically outlawed the issuance of private insurance and it kicked you off of your current policy if there were ANY that's not true there.

    In the Senate bill, employers are going to be offered such incentives to give their employees the boot on healthcare that NOBODY with employer provided insurance will have it by just a few years down the road, especially in this economy.

    So there you go. LIE.

    He also is telling us his bill (nonexistent) will bring down the deficit...BUT the CBO said no way, jose, we're talking 2.6 Trillion of additional debt over 10 years, and then it gets REAL expensive, since the "benefits" dont start for 4 more years, but the taxes start immediately. After the first 10 years budget forecast, the costs will skyrocket because then we'll be on an even keel, one year of costs for one year of tax revenue.

    So there you go, LIE AGAIN.

    Now then, about global warming and heaven...Andy, c'mon. Please think about this.

    One, we don't have the Pope coming out and telling us that Heaven is all made up, that they made up the idea of heaven just to get people on their side. We don't have all kinds of evidence that the chief pushers of the belief in Heaven were doing so for purely financial gain and power and they knew they were lying about it in the first place. Heaven is a religious concept and cannot be proved or disproved. We don't collect scientific data at the expense of world governments in order to track Heaven's movements.

    Also, nobody is trying to ram through political legislation that necessarily will greatly hurt business and enterprise and quality of life for billions of people around the world on the basis of Heaven's existence...and if they were, nobody has come out and admitted that they lied and made up their "evidence" for political reasons.

    Simply no comparison.

  10. I'm going to be as short and simple about this as I can. The point of the analoy was that we people are mindful of the consequences of our actions (Sinning) without evidence that there will be any (Going to hell).

    Do you really think it is wise to not be mindful of our actions with regards to climate change? Please tell me why we shouldn't care about the potential to ruin the planets ability to support life.

    And ramming it through, scientist have been studying climate change for years, the bill spent 5 months getting passed. How long should a bill take to get passed before its no longer rammed. How much time studying the problem is enough? Or how much bipartisan support does it need before it isn't rammed anymore.

    I'm just tired of people tossing that word around like this is some departure from the way bills are usually passed.


  12. And you don't understand how "rammed" is being used. Rammed, as in rammed through AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

  13. Andy, I'll take another route in trying to help you understand where i'm coming from on the cap and trade/global warming debate:

    You make a very common claim that has been made since 1984 when this "climate crisis" mantra was started on the left...that the possibilities of what might happen if we do nothing are so terrible that it doesn't matter what industry we have to destroy, how many jobs we have to ruin, how much we must regress in quality of life...we just have to do something. And funny that, "something" always means taxing people and giving government more power.

    So no, there is no comparison between living a wholesome life on the chance that we may be judged by God in the afterlife and screwing over our economic and lifestyle progress because some ideologue called himself a "scientist", bought off other "scientists", and made these ridiculous claims that man-made CO2 can do ANYTHING whatsoever to the atmosphere. It is a hoax, the data was made up, the scientists lied about it, and they have admitted that there has been no warming since 1995. They have admitted that the himalayan glacier melting was totally falsified just to get the attention of world goverments. We know that Al Gore, chief hoaxer, used photoshopped images in his science fiction movie and book, and we know that he stands to make billions of dollars on the back of industry if cap and trade goes through.

    So why do YOU keep choosing to believe these hoaxers? In your heart, you believe something, either that I'm making this up or that the scientists made it up.

    We can't keep running off and doing different actions on the basis of a charge or a proposition. Just because environmentalists SAY that man made CO2 hurts the environment and causes warming does not make it true, NOR IS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR CLAIM VALID REASON FOR ENACTING ANY DETRIMENTAL LEGISLATION.

    And Jon made a great point...ramming thru doesn't mean quickly...Healthcare has been in the hopper a year now and if it passes, it will still be rammed thru against the will of the vast majority of Americans.


    It isn't a VAST Majority. It isn't even techinically a majority. With regards to health care. Took me 30 seconds to find that out. Thats the rhetoric Fox News throws around without it being true.

    As I stated on my post on the 9th I don't believe in global warming either. But I don't believe you have the authority to declare it a hoax either. But some scientists more intellegent than the two of us have reasons to believe in global warming and that is enough to give me concern. It was difficult to find articles that cited or made references other than the IPCC. But here are some articles.
    I think the jury is still out on the issue, but if you think manmade global warming is not at all possible than I'm not gonna waste my time.

  15. "It isn't a VAST Majority. It isn't even techinically a majority. With regards to health care. Took me 30 seconds to find that out. Thats the rhetoric Fox News throws around without it being true."

    With only 41% of people for it...uh yeah, that's ramming it through.

    I'm going to make this simple...

    "As I stated on my post on the 9th I don't believe in global warming either. But I don't believe you have the authority to declare it a hoax either."

    Two words: East Anglia

    "But some scientists more intellegent than the two of us have reasons to believe in global warming and that is enough to give me concern."

    Three words: Follow the money


    This is from an article today from Rasmussen Reports. Just more food for thought, but I tend to believe these guys more than USA Today/Gallup/Cnn.

    The point is that it is a steady majority of those who have an opinion against the legislation.

    Now Pelosi is trying to "deem" the Senate bill passed in the House and just decide to change it and vote on that bill instead...which I feel is totally wrong if not unconstitutional and the Senate parliamentarian has said would not fly. Unfortunately for the Republic, Joe Biden is the guy who may get to overrule the senate parliamentarian and "nobody messes with Joe".

    Andy, if congressional Democrats have to just "decide" that a bill has been passed without voting on it to get it passed, it is clear that such a bill is unsavory to a majority of AMericans.

    Plus, listen to the pundits on the DEMS side! There was a story on Friday by two democrat pollsters who were warning the dems against passing healthcare because it would cause a tidal wave of anger and vast defeats at the ballot box in November.

    Trying to twist yourself into believing that a majority of Americans dont' want this bill period is an exercise in futility.

    And as far as Cap and Trade...what Jon said.

  17. Okay, got some more Cap and Trade hoax updates. Just wanted to catalogue all the "errors" and problems these brilliant scientists have been making.

    In the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the one for which they shared the Nobel Peace Price with Algore, they made the statement that Himalayan glaciers would be disappearing by 2035 with a high likelihood (>90%). In actuality, they cited a report from the World Wildlife Fund, that beacon of environmental truth, which had cited an article The New Scientist by far left reporter Fred Pearce, who based his report on a brief email exchange in 1999 with Indian Professor Syed Hasnain, who was speculating about glaciers.

    Hasnain has said that he never said 2035, and that he was literally just making vague speculation.

    In regards to what Wardo said...WWF has dozens of citations in the 2007 IPCC report and receives an average of $15M per year from the EU. Follow the money.

    But the one glacier "error" is just the tip of the iceberg. In the same report, the IPCC claimed that "it is more likely than not...that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." BUT Royal Meteorological Society fellow Les Hatton tested the six separate hurricane claims in the IPCC report against data from NOAA and showed that in all six cases, their computer models were totally full of it.

    The IPCC claimed that global warming was going to destroy a bunch of Amazonian rainforest, um but they based their analysis on "no primary research data" in a report written by environmental activists, not scientists.

    Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, put together a "Synthesis Report" in which he claimed that by 2020, up to 50% of the agricultural production in Africa could be reduced by global warming. However, it turns out that this economist (that right, the freaking head of the IPCC is an economist, not a scientist) based his analysis on a report produced by Canadian advocacy groups, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specializes in carbon trading. Follow the money.

  18. It turns out that the entire temperature record dating back to the pre-satellite era (1850 - 1980) was systematically tampered with to manipulate the data so as to show warming trends over the past 130 years. Meteorologists Joseph D'Aleo (co-founder of the Weather Channel) and Anthony Watts chronicled the purposeful elimination of weather-measuring stations in areas of higher elevation, higher altitude, and rural areas (cooler areas) to keep temperature data artificially high in order to "prove" AGW. This destruction of data was perpetuated by NOAA, who shares data with the much famed Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. Essentially, there is no credible climate data for anything longer back than 1980, insofar as we can track small deviations.

    Even more on Pachauri - he owns a company called The Energy and Resources Institute. They approached the Carnegie Corporation for, and received, a large grant to hire Syed Hasnain to research his own speculative comment about Himalayan Glacier melting from 1999. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    And finally, Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia admitted on February 14 in The UK Daily Mail that it was "possible that the world was warmer in medieval times than now - suggesting that global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon." He also said that "for the past 15 years that has been no statistically significant warming." He also agreed that "he lack organizational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper, and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be." What a shame, since his data is the primary basis for the "hockey stick graph" used by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University and other alarmists to "prove" their theory and try to get people riled up. You've seen this graph before if you watched Algore's science fiction movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

    No, but I'm sure there is a well-intentioned reason for all of this and I'm sure that these scientists who are smarter than you and I could by right about global warming.

    Never check your intellect at the door because somebody puts "scientist" by their name.


  19. With regards to the polling data, I picked that website because it gave you a snapshot of data from 9 poll sources. I agree that Rasputen appears to be legitametly unbiased, but the only other poll that shows an actual 'majority of americans' opposing the health care bill is a repulican sponsered polling firm. It's in their about section. So I stand by the average 41 for 48 opposed is the type of split i would expect on such highly debated issues. But I only want to speak to the wishes of the american people on this issue.

    I haven't observed the conduct you mentioned by democrats so I can't speak one way or the other.

    With regards to global warming. All I wanted from you was to say (paraphrasing a little) 'scientist could be right about global warming'. I never said Al gore, the IPCC, and East Anglia did not have anything to gain by manipulating the worlds perception of global warming. Or that there wasn't money to follow. My point was:

    1. Global warming may be real and the consequences dire.
    2. It isn't necessarily profitable enough to modify a business to make itself 'greener'
    3. The only people capable of creating incentives to be greener when profitability isn't an incentive is the a government.

  20. If you want to observe the conduct by the news or visit Hell, CNN and Washington post are going on about the "self executing option"...aka, passing a bill without voting on it. Even WaPo says its a dirty tactic.

    Apparently such a tactic is not unheard of, but in the past its been used for such things as raising the debt limit. Never has it been used to take over 17% of the American economy and at such strong opposition to the will of America.

    I for one think it is ridiculous to ever be used. I've never heard of it being used before but apparently, it has been. Sucks all the time and should NOT be allowed.

    Back to AGW:

    1. Global warming may be happening, or it may not. We don't have any credible data to support either theory because the "scientists" involved in tracking such data have lied, manipulated, and "lost" the data supporting their claims. Either way, if it is, we'd better learn to adapt because their is not a damned thing we can do to affect the climate short of nuking the world.
    2. It flat out is not profitable for businesses to "green" themselves because that phrase is utterly backwards and outlandish. I get it if a company wants to promote the fact that it reduces its paper waste, electricity usage, water consumption, etc, but these things will not save the planet. However, pumping out more CO2 into the atmosphere IS VERY BENEFICIAL to plantlife and thus, human life. CO2 is the demon these ecowackos have chosen to attack, which is dumb because any 14 year old in a first rate biology class could tell you that plant life NEEDS CO2 and that we NEED the O2 put out by plants.
    3. A government cannot create incentives to go green; it can only withdraw threats.

    I am not going to offer any doubt that the "scientists" who have been pushing man-made global warming for 25 years may be right. I know of hundreds of thousands of scientists who agree with me. Furthermore, I have made a judgment in my own mind based on the evidence, the motives of those involved, and my own understanding of basic biological principles. The AGW crowd just doesn't pass the smell test and playing their game of "well it COULD be really really we have to do something just in case!" is what has led to the ruin of the automobile industry, the over burdening of industry, the dependency we have on foreign oil because we wont' go get our own, and on and on. Playing that game is dangerous and ill advised. Making policy decisions based on speculation and political motivations regarding matters of science and the environment of this magnitude will only lead to economic ruin...not a healthy planet.