|
|
On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone.
Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized.
|
So Ron Paul supporters are disrupting the floor.
|
|
On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized. No, they're not serious. When you say you're going to do something (balance the budget/reduce the deficit), but don't explain how and don't leave the room to do it except by doing things you've said you wouldn't do (i.e. raise taxes on the middle class), you're not being serious.
edit: here, go read this.
|
On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized.
You're talking about a plan that reduces 5 TRILLION in tax revenue, without cutting the defense budget or raising capital gains taxes. Asking how you're going to pay for it is perfectly reasonable -- and responsible -- and the equivalent of squabbling over budget line items.
Pretending that it's a serious proposal is what is ignorant, and delusional.
Have you ever had experience drafting a real budget? I have. Largest project was $7 million. And no, you can't magically chop a budget in half and pretend you're not changing the results you're going to deliver.
|
On August 29 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized. You're talking about a plan that reduces 5 TRILLION in tax revenue, without cutting the defense budget or raising capital gains taxes. Asking how you're going to pay for it is perfectly reasonable -- and responsible -- and the equivalent of squabbling over budget line items. Pretending that it's a serious proposal is what is ignorant, and delusional. Have you ever had experience drafting a real budget? I have. Largest project was $7 million. And no, you can't magically chop a budget in half and pretend you're not changing the results you're going to deliver.
And going on the route we're going on now is even worse. Whine all you want, but it's a step in the right direction.
|
Sorry Ron Paul fans, it's official. Mitt Romney won the Republican presidential nomination and Paul Ryan won the VP nomination.
Mitt Romney officially clinched the GOP presidential nomination Tuesday when a majority of delegates to the Republican National Convention supported his candidacy.
To roaring cheers in the packed Tampa Bay Times Forum, the delegation from New Jersey put Romney above the 1,144-delegate threshhold and a step closer in his five-year quest for the White House.
Earlier, the 2,200-plus convention delegates approved a conservative platform that called for less government, opposed same-sex marriage and endorsed a "human life amendment" to ban abortion with no specific exceptions for cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is threatened.
|
It is hard to support a political party and it's platform when you read they support an idea that would leave three out of four members of your family, including yourself, dead/unborn.
|
Canada11266 Posts
re: RNC live stream
*sigh
They continue to willfully twist the 'you didn't build that' phrase. But I guess it's a fun strawman to smash over and over.
Edit. Oh geez, I really haven't followed American Idol/Talent. Never hear of this Boyd guy. But that saxophone guys at the break were more interesting.
|
On August 28 2012 01:28 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 23:59 BluePanther wrote: We were talking about today, not when he was elected. The question is "why is he still relevant/revered?" Because he was the first major, successful American (and arguably world) politician to articulate why the government so often does more harm than good. Socialism in various forms took over everywhere during the 19th and 20th centuries and Reagan's philosophy is the historical counterpoint.
Somali is the best example of government doing more good than harm.
|
1019 Posts
On August 29 2012 07:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized. You're talking about a plan that reduces 5 TRILLION in tax revenue, without cutting the defense budget or raising capital gains taxes. Asking how you're going to pay for it is perfectly reasonable -- and responsible -- and the equivalent of squabbling over budget line items. Pretending that it's a serious proposal is what is ignorant, and delusional. Have you ever had experience drafting a real budget? I have. Largest project was $7 million. And no, you can't magically chop a budget in half and pretend you're not changing the results you're going to deliver. And going on the route we're going on now is even worse. Whine all you want, but it's a step in the right direction.
The federal deficit is at the point where reversing the bush tax cuts in addition to raising additional revenue has to be part of any budget plan in order to meaningfully dig out of the hole. We are so deep in the hole right now. Refusing any kind of tax increase at this point is pretty delusional and the republican budget plans depend heavily on rapid economic growth that will come from, according to GOP, more tax cuts, which is pretty baseless. We had a decade of the bush tax cuts and where did the economy and deficit go? On the other hand, clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. How strange. A realistic budget plan needs to be a combination of cutting government spending as well as raising taxes. Anything else is just partisan bickering.
|
On August 29 2012 08:38 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 07:16 BluePanther wrote:On August 29 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized. You're talking about a plan that reduces 5 TRILLION in tax revenue, without cutting the defense budget or raising capital gains taxes. Asking how you're going to pay for it is perfectly reasonable -- and responsible -- and the equivalent of squabbling over budget line items. Pretending that it's a serious proposal is what is ignorant, and delusional. Have you ever had experience drafting a real budget? I have. Largest project was $7 million. And no, you can't magically chop a budget in half and pretend you're not changing the results you're going to deliver. And going on the route we're going on now is even worse. Whine all you want, but it's a step in the right direction. The federal deficit is at the point where reversing the bush tax cuts in addition to raising additional revenue has to be part of any budget plan in order to meaningfully dig out of the hole. We are so deep in the hole right now. Refusing any kind of tax increase at this point is pretty delusional and the republican budget plans depend heavily on rapid economic growth that will come from, according to GOP, more tax cuts, which is pretty baseless. We had a decade of the bush tax cuts and where did the economy and deficit go? On the other hand, clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. How strange. A realistic budget plan needs to be a combination of cutting government spending as well as raising taxes. Anything else is just partisan bickering.
Its also worth noting that refusal to up taxes played a big role in our credit rating downgrade.
|
On August 29 2012 08:24 Saryph wrote: It is hard to support a political party and it's platform when you read they support an idea that would leave three out of four members of your family, including yourself, dead/unborn.
explain?
|
On August 29 2012 07:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 05:50 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 02:05 Defacer wrote: They might as well be promising every American a pony.
No, that's the Democrat plan. Oh wait... it was unicorns they were promising everyone. Both Romney and Ryan's budgets are serious and the claim that you have to detail every single item in advance is simply ignorant bashing by people who don't understand or don't want to understand how budgets are finalized. You're talking about a plan that reduces 5 TRILLION in tax revenue, without cutting the defense budget or raising capital gains taxes. Asking how you're going to pay for it is perfectly reasonable -- and responsible -- and the equivalent of squabbling over budget line items. Pretending that it's a serious proposal is what is ignorant, and delusional. Have you ever had experience drafting a real budget? I have. Largest project was $7 million. And no, you can't magically chop a budget in half and pretend you're not changing the results you're going to deliver. And going on the route we're going on now is even worse. Whine all you want, but it's a step in the right direction.
If you seriously think Romney or Ryan have the integrity or political will to slash revenue and make the necessary cuts to the budget to balance the budget, you're dreaming bud. They're just going to digging a deeper hole while widening the income gap.
I like how David Frum puts it -- income inequality is actually fine, the lack of income mobility is the issue that both parties need to address. The ability to stay in the middle class or rise from the lower class, with little inherited capital but great work ethic and initiative, is what the American Dream is actually about.
Romney's plan of decreasing regulation and tax revenue and social services simply makes no sense. If anything you should decrease regulation and raise taxes, or lower taxes and increase regulation. You should either insure there is a social system to protect everyone in the event of a financial crisis (like the mortgage crisis), or insure there are measures and barriers in place to prevent a crisis from ever occurring (again, like the mortage crisis).
Meh.
|
I love how members of the most priviliged class in the US are creating this myth that their lives are 'hard'.
(We built it!)
Also, president Obama has never run a lemonade stand and thus can't understand small business. The ironic part is that Obama is a small business owner himself.
|
In other news, The New Republic has a fascinating article by Michael Wolfe, who is writing the biography of Rupert Murdoch, which elaborates on why Murdoch just doesn't like Romney. The whole article is less an indictment of Romney, as much as it is the profile or a crotchety, old-school conservative that is getting sick of the phoniness of politics, and the goofy extremism of Neo-Conservatives (yet is profiting greatly from it with Fox News).
http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/politics/106460/why-rupert-murdoch-hates-mitt-romney?page=0,0
Money quote:
During the 2008 campaign, when I spent several hours each week interviewing Murdoch for the biography I was writing about him and was privy to his constant campaign replays, Romney never earned more from the often non-verbal Murdoch than a snort, guffaw, or grimace. Murdoch, whose core political values are more visceral than ideological, marveled at the contrast between the stolid father—George Romney, running a come-from-behind automobile company—and what he reckoned to be the hopelessly superficial son in the private-equity business. (Murdoch’s oldest daughter, Prudence, was once, briefly and unhappily, married to a private-equity type whom he didn’t like at all.)
Romney, he continues to tell people who find their way into his political conversations (or monologues) this year, can’t be trusted. Romney is “unprincipled”—one of Murdoch’s bad words—by which he usually means too camera-ready, too media-attuned, and too market-focused. And the larger point: He is just plain grumpy about the uninspired Republican nominee, with the implicit threat that, if unappeased, he is capable of throwing a wrench into the works.
Murdoch has an almost aesthetic appreciation of personal strength and inner rectitude (if you wear a sharp suit, you don’t have it)—as well as an antenna for political phoniness. This may well come from enduring all the politicians who regularly suck up to him. But it is also the newsman’s conceit of having seen too much to be fooled by a politician’s public face.
In my conversations with Murdoch, he noted again and again what he saw as the incredulous proposition of someone getting elected in Massachusetts and then trying to win the support of the country’s Christian right. “You’d have to turn yourself inside out,” he said. There are, too, his instinctive aversions. “Slick” is another of his very bad words. He dislikes Romney’s smile. He mutters about Romney’s hair.
|
Good lord, Sen. Ayote is a horrible speaker.
|
On August 29 2012 08:51 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 08:24 Saryph wrote: It is hard to support a political party and it's platform when you read they support an idea that would leave three out of four members of your family, including yourself, dead/unborn. explain? Interested in hearing this as well. If this is a jab at Democrats, remember that it's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice. It's not forced , and plenty of people will surely not get abortions for religious reasons. It's like claiming gay-marriage legalization will cause all marriages to be gay.
On August 29 2012 09:23 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 08:51 darthfoley wrote:On August 29 2012 08:24 Saryph wrote: It is hard to support a political party and it's platform when you read they support an idea that would leave three out of four members of your family, including yourself, dead/unborn. explain? The section about them banning abortion even if the pregnant woman's life is at risk. Oh, yeah, that will never pass. The party itself may support it, but there's no way it will garner moderate support.
|
On August 29 2012 08:51 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 08:24 Saryph wrote: It is hard to support a political party and it's platform when you read they support an idea that would leave three out of four members of your family, including yourself, dead/unborn. explain?
The section about them banning abortion even if the pregnant woman's life is at risk.
|
On August 29 2012 09:21 xDaunt wrote: Good lord, Sen. Ayote is a horrible speaker.
Nuts, are you watch the RNC right now?
I'm still at work. :/
|
|
|
|