On February 24 2012 07:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: From Romney pulling a Perry and saying he could decide what questions he wanted to answer, to Ron Paul being booed for asking for evidence on going to war to Newts Infanticide comment, I would say Obama slept peacefully last night.
Are there any Republican nominees who you don't think would get widespread support from the Republican base? I mean if half of the Republicans hate Romney right now, when they have to choose between him or Obama, they are gonna be kissing Romney's feet, right?
On February 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno, Greece and Turkey hate each other but they aren't bombing each other. I certainly think Israel and the middle east can coexist. I think may take more economic and social change. Israel is becoming more fundamentalist which is obviously not helping things though. I don't think anything is inevitable.
Greece and Turkey hate each other for reasons which are less ingrained into the traditions of the countries as far as I know. Don't forget, Israel has Jerusalem which is no small thing. Also the creation of Israel was not executed in the cleanest of ways.
Yea but just because people hate each other doesn't mean they want to kill each other. That's my main point. It's not like they have to be buddies. We just have to get the countries to see mutual benefits to each others existence. Money and trade, baby.
Well let's not bother with the "what could have been", the fact is that in the current conjuncture, those countries are fundamentally fervently opposed. That can't be fixed by good intentions or trade though. You can't pep talk people into becoming friends, especially not after people on both sides have lost family and friends and there's this general sense of unfairness that cannot be fixed, at least not for this generation or the next.
What? I'm not talking about what if situations. I'm talking about right now.
I think you underestimate trade and money in its effects on regional stability. Many populations in the middle east is getting frustrated with anti Israeli sentiments because they don't see how it's going to actually help the issues in their countries. They still hate Israel of course, but they want to better their own lives more.
My whole point was that they don't have to become friends. Stable peace is the goal.
I think you might be underestimating the scope of anti-semitism in the middle-east. It is really extremely prevalent.
I don't know if people in the middle-east really want to improve their own lives more than that they hate jews or hate non-believers. Remember all those protests calling for the death of a cartoonist in Sweden? I mean, are you serious? Are you people really complaining about a cartoon whilst your own governments are fucking you over like that?
I think a lot of people in the middle-east believe that their problems are the result of jews. Their governments are more than eager to shift blame from themselves to Israel.
Jews also suffer a rather peculiar form of racism. Most racism is aimed at the perceived notion that a certain minority is under performing or not adapting to the main culture. Jews on the other hand seem to get accused of over-performing and controlling the world.
It isn't unheard of that people blame others for their problems. I think we recently had a thread where Serbians began to blame the US for making them go out and commit genocide.
Given how far people can twist and bend logic, I don't think it's unheard of that some people might honestly believe that Israel is the cause of their poverty.
I may be mistaken of course. But it sounded like frustrations of anti Israel sentiments not benefiting anyone was growing significantly, even if it is still the minority. I thought this was a recent trend in attitudes in the region.
And come on, I'm not saying it's going to be easy. But the world changes pretty quickly nowadays, and I'm not sure what the situation will look like in a generation.
Don't you think your logic is a bit delusional? You don't think between a couple thousands years of hatred and wars, there was a single person like you who thought they could just make up and be friends? The world doesn't work like that.
So I don't understand why in every single one of my posts on Israel I've had to reiterate that I don't think they can be friends, and in fact that they don't need to be friends. Do I need to make it my signature ffs? Seriously, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I find it hilarious that you call my logic delusional and then say they've hated each other for thousands of years.
The fact is that there are a lot of long standing hatreds that have been diffused over humanity's lifetime (Greece/Turkey you could probably trace back to the Trojan War). There have been many revolutions that have completely transformed a country's culture in a relatively short amount of time. I suppose it's because the political landscape hasn't really changed much in our lifetime, but I don't understand this thought process that things cannot change and the status quo is forever.
On February 24 2012 07:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: From Romney pulling a Perry and saying he could decide what questions he wanted to answer, to Ron Paul being booed for asking for evidence on going to war to Newts Infanticide comment, I would say Obama slept peacefully last night.
Are there any Republican nominees who you don't think would get widespread support from the Republican base? I mean if half of the Republicans hate Romney right now, when they have to choose between him or Obama, they are gonna be kissing Romney's feet, right?
Unless Ron Paul goes Third Party, which he won't for some reason, I think the 2012 election is a win/win for Moderates as Obama and Romney are pretty much the same. Romney is hiding his Moderate(even sometimes Progressive) policies in order to try and win the nomination. He won't be able to do anything if he remains this stance in the general election and if he manages to win he certainly won't be able to do anything. So he will have to go moderate sooner or later and that will be interesting.
As for your first question it's Ron Paul again as the man asks for evidence and is booed, and so forth.
On February 24 2012 07:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Unless Ron Paul goes Third Party, which he won't for some reason, I think the 2012 election is a win/win for Moderates as Obama and Romney are pretty much the same. Romney is hiding his Moderate(even sometimes Progressive) policies in order to try and win the nomination. He won't be able to do anything if he remains this stance in the general election and if he manages to win he certainly won't be able to do anything. So he will have to go moderate sooner or later and that will be interesting.
Why do you say that? (bolded part) I expect the GOP to control both the House and Senate for at least the next 4 years; seems like he would be able to do whatever he wants. Democrats don't have the organizational discipline to pull off obstruction for that long as the minority party.
On February 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno, Greece and Turkey hate each other but they aren't bombing each other. I certainly think Israel and the middle east can coexist. I think may take more economic and social change. Israel is becoming more fundamentalist which is obviously not helping things though. I don't think anything is inevitable.
Greece and Turkey hate each other for reasons which are less ingrained into the traditions of the countries as far as I know. Don't forget, Israel has Jerusalem which is no small thing. Also the creation of Israel was not executed in the cleanest of ways.
Yea but just because people hate each other doesn't mean they want to kill each other. That's my main point. It's not like they have to be buddies. We just have to get the countries to see mutual benefits to each others existence. Money and trade, baby.
Well let's not bother with the "what could have been", the fact is that in the current conjuncture, those countries are fundamentally fervently opposed. That can't be fixed by good intentions or trade though. You can't pep talk people into becoming friends, especially not after people on both sides have lost family and friends and there's this general sense of unfairness that cannot be fixed, at least not for this generation or the next.
What? I'm not talking about what if situations. I'm talking about right now.
I think you underestimate trade and money in its effects on regional stability. Many populations in the middle east is getting frustrated with anti Israeli sentiments because they don't see how it's going to actually help the issues in their countries. They still hate Israel of course, but they want to better their own lives more.
My whole point was that they don't have to become friends. Stable peace is the goal.
I think you might be underestimating the scope of anti-semitism in the middle-east. It is really extremely prevalent.
I don't know if people in the middle-east really want to improve their own lives more than that they hate jews or hate non-believers. Remember all those protests calling for the death of a cartoonist in Sweden? I mean, are you serious? Are you people really complaining about a cartoon whilst your own governments are fucking you over like that?
I think a lot of people in the middle-east believe that their problems are the result of jews. Their governments are more than eager to shift blame from themselves to Israel.
Jews also suffer a rather peculiar form of racism. Most racism is aimed at the perceived notion that a certain minority is under performing or not adapting to the main culture. Jews on the other hand seem to get accused of over-performing and controlling the world.
It isn't unheard of that people blame others for their problems. I think we recently had a thread where Serbians began to blame the US for making them go out and commit genocide.
Given how far people can twist and bend logic, I don't think it's unheard of that some people might honestly believe that Israel is the cause of their poverty.
I may be mistaken of course. But it sounded like frustrations of anti Israel sentiments not benefiting anyone was growing significantly, even if it is still the minority. I thought this was a recent trend in attitudes in the region.
And come on, I'm not saying it's going to be easy. But the world changes pretty quickly nowadays, and I'm not sure what the situation will look like in a generation.
Don't you think your logic is a bit delusional? You don't think between a couple thousands years of hatred and wars, there was a single person like you who thought they could just make up and be friends? The world doesn't work like that.
So I don't understand why in every single one of my posts on Israel I've had to reiterate that I don't think they can be friends, and in fact that they don't need to be friends. Do I need to make it my signature ffs? Seriously, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I find it hilarious that you call my logic delusional and then say they've hated each other for thousands of years.
The fact is that there are a lot of long standing hatreds that have been diffused over humanity's lifetime (Greece/Turkey you could probably trace back to the Trojan War). There have been many revolutions that have completely transformed a country's culture in a relatively short amount of time. I suppose it's because the political landscape hasn't really changed much in our lifetime, but I don't understand this thought process that things cannot change and the status quo is forever.
Yes the feud has existed for well over a thousand years and no the Greek/Ottoman rivalry cannot be traced back to a mythological event.
On February 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote: I dunno, Greece and Turkey hate each other but they aren't bombing each other. I certainly think Israel and the middle east can coexist. I think may take more economic and social change. Israel is becoming more fundamentalist which is obviously not helping things though. I don't think anything is inevitable.
Greece and Turkey hate each other for reasons which are less ingrained into the traditions of the countries as far as I know. Don't forget, Israel has Jerusalem which is no small thing. Also the creation of Israel was not executed in the cleanest of ways.
Yea but just because people hate each other doesn't mean they want to kill each other. That's my main point. It's not like they have to be buddies. We just have to get the countries to see mutual benefits to each others existence. Money and trade, baby.
Well let's not bother with the "what could have been", the fact is that in the current conjuncture, those countries are fundamentally fervently opposed. That can't be fixed by good intentions or trade though. You can't pep talk people into becoming friends, especially not after people on both sides have lost family and friends and there's this general sense of unfairness that cannot be fixed, at least not for this generation or the next.
What? I'm not talking about what if situations. I'm talking about right now.
I think you underestimate trade and money in its effects on regional stability. Many populations in the middle east is getting frustrated with anti Israeli sentiments because they don't see how it's going to actually help the issues in their countries. They still hate Israel of course, but they want to better their own lives more.
My whole point was that they don't have to become friends. Stable peace is the goal.
I think you might be underestimating the scope of anti-semitism in the middle-east. It is really extremely prevalent.
I don't know if people in the middle-east really want to improve their own lives more than that they hate jews or hate non-believers. Remember all those protests calling for the death of a cartoonist in Sweden? I mean, are you serious? Are you people really complaining about a cartoon whilst your own governments are fucking you over like that?
I think a lot of people in the middle-east believe that their problems are the result of jews. Their governments are more than eager to shift blame from themselves to Israel.
Jews also suffer a rather peculiar form of racism. Most racism is aimed at the perceived notion that a certain minority is under performing or not adapting to the main culture. Jews on the other hand seem to get accused of over-performing and controlling the world.
It isn't unheard of that people blame others for their problems. I think we recently had a thread where Serbians began to blame the US for making them go out and commit genocide.
Given how far people can twist and bend logic, I don't think it's unheard of that some people might honestly believe that Israel is the cause of their poverty.
I may be mistaken of course. But it sounded like frustrations of anti Israel sentiments not benefiting anyone was growing significantly, even if it is still the minority. I thought this was a recent trend in attitudes in the region.
And come on, I'm not saying it's going to be easy. But the world changes pretty quickly nowadays, and I'm not sure what the situation will look like in a generation.
Don't you think your logic is a bit delusional? You don't think between a couple thousands years of hatred and wars, there was a single person like you who thought they could just make up and be friends? The world doesn't work like that.
So I don't understand why in every single one of my posts on Israel I've had to reiterate that I don't think they can be friends, and in fact that they don't need to be friends. Do I need to make it my signature ffs? Seriously, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I find it hilarious that you call my logic delusional and then say they've hated each other for thousands of years.
The fact is that there are a lot of long standing hatreds that have been diffused over humanity's lifetime (Greece/Turkey you could probably trace back to the Trojan War). There have been many revolutions that have completely transformed a country's culture in a relatively short amount of time. I suppose it's because the political landscape hasn't really changed much in our lifetime, but I don't understand this thought process that things cannot change and the status quo is forever.
Yes the feud has existed for well over a thousand years and no the Greek/Ottoman rivalry cannot be traced back to a mythological event.
The Muslim empires were actually quite tolerant and friendly with the Jews during a significant portion of the postclassical era. It's not actually true that Muslims and Jews have never gotten along very well. They were much nicer than the Christians of that era in fact. And you said a "couple thousand years", implying more than two thousand. You clearly misspoke and I'm just messing with you man. Chill. Anyway, if you don't mind, I think I'd like to get back on topic.
So was the very last debate? Or was this the last episode of the season?
Man, no one ever mentions that Israel started several wars in the Middle East, and has nukes and high-tech arms. Assassinations, which they've all but admitted to, are kind of illegal under international law as well.
I think we've got kind of a double-standard here. If we're complaining Iran isn't being Halal, Israel is definitely not Kosher.
Greek/ Turk is probably traceable to the Persian Wars, imo. And the Mulsim empires were perhaps some of the most tolerant-- for a tax, they allowed people of other religions (so-called "people of the book") to worship freely. I don't think I need to elaborate on the Crusades.
On February 24 2012 07:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Unless Ron Paul goes Third Party, which he won't for some reason, I think the 2012 election is a win/win for Moderates as Obama and Romney are pretty much the same. Romney is hiding his Moderate(even sometimes Progressive) policies in order to try and win the nomination. He won't be able to do anything if he remains this stance in the general election and if he manages to win he certainly won't be able to do anything. So he will have to go moderate sooner or later and that will be interesting.
Why do you say that? (bolded part) I expect the GOP to control both the House and Senate for at least the next 4 years; seems like he would be able to do whatever he wants. Democrats don't have the organizational discipline to pull off obstruction for that long as the minority party.
Say Romney wins the Presidency he either chooses to be a Moderate in order to secure Independents but he pisses off the Tea Party Republicans and Conservatives. Or he chooses the far right like the rest and alienates Independents and Moderates.
Basically either way Obama or Romney are stuck with a polarized government.
I have my fingers crossed for a brokered convention. Things have been getting so nasty, I don't think the party will be able to heal, Republican party politics are so divisive anways and this election they have been doing close to nothing to reach other to Latino voters. Obama isn't that popular nowadays, but the way things looks right now, ROFL Stomp for Obama in November.
WASHINGTON -- The main super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has violated campaign finance law, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group said on Thursday. Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, called foul on the Restore Our Future PAC for recycling a 2007 ad from the former governor's prior presidential bid.
The move by the group, which is filled with former Romney staffers and colleagues, violates campaign finance law that prohibits the republication of campaign materials by a super PAC, Ryan said.
On Thursday, Restore Our Future released an ad, titled "Saved," which is identical to a 2007 Romney campaign ad titled "Searched." The ad features Robert Gay, a former business partner of Romney, explaining how Romney shut down Bain Capital and brought 50 employees to New York City to track down Gay's daughter, who had snuck off from home to go to a rave. Both ads feature the same footage and the same monologue from Gay.
The only difference between the ads is that the Restore Our Future ad ends with the line "Brought to you by Restore Our Future" rather than the closing line of the 2007 Romney ad "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
"Super PACs are prohibited from making coordinated communications," Ryan said. "Super PACs are also prohibited from making payments to candidates," he added. "There's an FEC regulation that treats the dissemination, distribution or republication of campaign materials as a contribution from the super PAC to the candidate regardless of whether or not it's coordinated with the candidate," he said referring to the Federal Election Commission.
Said Ryan: "It appears that Restore Our Future, by republishing a Romney campaign ad, has clearly violated the law."
WASHINGTON -- The main super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has violated campaign finance law, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group said on Thursday. Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, called foul on the Restore Our Future PAC for recycling a 2007 ad from the former governor's prior presidential bid.
The move by the group, which is filled with former Romney staffers and colleagues, violates campaign finance law that prohibits the republication of campaign materials by a super PAC, Ryan said.
On Thursday, Restore Our Future released an ad, titled "Saved," which is identical to a 2007 Romney campaign ad titled "Searched." The ad features Robert Gay, a former business partner of Romney, explaining how Romney shut down Bain Capital and brought 50 employees to New York City to track down Gay's daughter, who had snuck off from home to go to a rave. Both ads feature the same footage and the same monologue from Gay.
The only difference between the ads is that the Restore Our Future ad ends with the line "Brought to you by Restore Our Future" rather than the closing line of the 2007 Romney ad "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
"Super PACs are prohibited from making coordinated communications," Ryan said. "Super PACs are also prohibited from making payments to candidates," he added. "There's an FEC regulation that treats the dissemination, distribution or republication of campaign materials as a contribution from the super PAC to the candidate regardless of whether or not it's coordinated with the candidate," he said referring to the Federal Election Commission.
Said Ryan: "It appears that Restore Our Future, by republishing a Romney campaign ad, has clearly violated the law."
What are the implications? Is this something that will hurt Romney, or is it more of a little prick on the finger sorta thing? I have a hard time understanding when fraud is consequential and important or not. Sad world we live in, lol.
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
Why are these great graphs and statistics so easily ignored and brushed aside? I have not heard any of the MSM show this graph or even mention anything like it. Why is this? It would appear to be simple enough for the average dumb American to comprehend.
WASHINGTON -- The main super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has violated campaign finance law, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group said on Thursday. Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, called foul on the Restore Our Future PAC for recycling a 2007 ad from the former governor's prior presidential bid.
The move by the group, which is filled with former Romney staffers and colleagues, violates campaign finance law that prohibits the republication of campaign materials by a super PAC, Ryan said.
On Thursday, Restore Our Future released an ad, titled "Saved," which is identical to a 2007 Romney campaign ad titled "Searched." The ad features Robert Gay, a former business partner of Romney, explaining how Romney shut down Bain Capital and brought 50 employees to New York City to track down Gay's daughter, who had snuck off from home to go to a rave. Both ads feature the same footage and the same monologue from Gay.
The only difference between the ads is that the Restore Our Future ad ends with the line "Brought to you by Restore Our Future" rather than the closing line of the 2007 Romney ad "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
"Super PACs are prohibited from making coordinated communications," Ryan said. "Super PACs are also prohibited from making payments to candidates," he added. "There's an FEC regulation that treats the dissemination, distribution or republication of campaign materials as a contribution from the super PAC to the candidate regardless of whether or not it's coordinated with the candidate," he said referring to the Federal Election Commission.
Said Ryan: "It appears that Restore Our Future, by republishing a Romney campaign ad, has clearly violated the law."
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
Why are these great graphs and statistics so easily ignored and brushed aside? I have not heard any of the MSM show this graph or even mention anything like it. Why is this? It would appear to be simple enough for the average dumb American to comprehend.
Btw, thanks for the info!
Because facts are fiendishly difficult things. Much better to peddle bullshit and hope the people are hungry.
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
Why are these great graphs and statistics so easily ignored and brushed aside? I have not heard any of the MSM show this graph or even mention anything like it. Why is this? It would appear to be simple enough for the average dumb American to comprehend.
Btw, thanks for the info!
Because facts are fiendishly difficult things. Much better to peddle bullshit and hope the people are hungry.
Since most news outlets severely cut their journalism staff and budgets, it has been much easier for them to take the tips and news straight from the campaigns. Why do journalism when the best stories are being handed out like candy?
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
Why are these great graphs and statistics so easily ignored and brushed aside? I have not heard any of the MSM show this graph or even mention anything like it. Why is this? It would appear to be simple enough for the average dumb American to comprehend.
Btw, thanks for the info!
Because facts are fiendishly difficult things. Much better to peddle bullshit and hope the people are hungry.
Since most news outlets severely cut their journalism staff and budgets, it has been much easier for them to take the tips and news straight from the campaigns. Why do journalism when the best stories are being handed out like candy?
Indeed. Why become a journalist in the first place? I can't imagine the guys writing this stuff are happy doing it. Who becomes a journalist with the passion to parrot campaign slogans?
An event hosted Thursday morning by the fiscal discipline hawks at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget offered this corner of the establishment an early critique of the GOP candidates’ tax and spending plans — all of which drew mixed reviews or worse.
“We have a historically low rate of taxation per GDP. I think we’re in the 15 to 16 percent range, spending in the 23 to 24 percent range,” said Vic Fazio, a former Democratic Congressman. “That gap has to close. Most if not all of these tax proposals would widen it.”
The GOP plans are all marked by large, swift cuts to federal revenue, achieved largely by lowering taxes on the wealthy, matched with vague cuts to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and the dubious assertion that the tax cuts will largely pay for themselves — a claim former Republican congressman Bill Frenzel called “wishful thinking translated into public policy.”
The result, according to CRFB figures, isn’t fiscal discipline, but a smaller federal government.
Why are these great graphs and statistics so easily ignored and brushed aside? I have not heard any of the MSM show this graph or even mention anything like it. Why is this? It would appear to be simple enough for the average dumb American to comprehend.
Btw, thanks for the info!
Because facts are fiendishly difficult things. Much better to peddle bullshit and hope the people are hungry.
Since most news outlets severely cut their journalism staff and budgets, it has been much easier for them to take the tips and news straight from the campaigns. Why do journalism when the best stories are being handed out like candy?
Indeed. Why become a journalist in the first place? I can't imagine the guys writing this stuff are happy doing it. Who becomes a journalist with the passion to parrot campaign slogans?
Well, some of the campaign staff are really good journalists. They do some really good investigation and reporting, then it goes to an editor, where it gets trimmed and formatted to fit the candidate's agenda.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gop-debt.png)
