On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
Congratulations, here's your new base!
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up.
1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably.
So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I'm with Doublereed on this subject. I'm voting Obama because the economy has stopped freefalling and settled even under him - and even some slight growth now. I would love MORE growth, but I can accept lowered expectations.
I, however, do not thing that Romney - even with a cooperative congress - is going to improve our economic situation. I fear that we get dragged into a war with Iran, based on his and his party's comments. I don't agree with a tax cut for the rich. I'm willing to give Obama 4 more years - and hope that the Republican party evolves into a better party. That's why I'm voting Obama.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't.
Funny you mention that since it would be liberals who would pass the best type of entitlement reform: single-payer health insurance.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't.
Well, I think everyone is going to reform Social Security because it's really easy to make S.S. solvent (and in fact a 2nd term president is more likely to do so than a 1st term president because the reforms will be slightly unpopular). And Romney/Ryan have gone on record saying they're reversing the ACA and not going to change Medicare in any way (not even vouchers, last I heard).
I mean, ACA DID reform and cut entitlements, it just wasn't the reform some people wanted.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up.
1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably.
So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least.
This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts.
You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit.
I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit.
On October 19 2012 09:56 DoubleReed wrote: Why does anyone... ANYONE think Romney would do a better job on the deficit than Obama?
What about Romney's policy even barely suggests that he will balance the budget? He's suggested massive tax cuts and a massive boost to defense spending. How could that possibly possibly balance the budget? You can't do all that and balance the budget.
Over Obama's term the deficit has been reduced. Not just marginally either. By 200 billion. And the only president that has reduced the deficit by that much that quickly in recent history is Clinton. Not a single Republican President since fucking Eisenhower has ever ever ever reduced the deficit. This idea that republicans are good with balancing budgets is one of the most ridiculous falsehoods that continues in today's politics.
And yet people still parrot it about as if it's just automatically true. It's absolutely absurd at this point.
Use a little logic and common sense please. Romney can't cut taxes. We don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can do that, and they won't. This is politics, you say whatever sounds good because most people don't have basic logic or common sense. Even the people who should be informed in this thread are showing a shocking lack of it on this issue. Deficits aren't determined by presidencies, they are determined by Congress. Market rallies/recessions also play a large role in the budget, which is something NO president has control over. End of argument.
Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?
You're just going to ignore everything Romney has said about his budget. Literally everything. And then you're going to claim that he'll somehow be better than Obama, who has a record of reducing the deficit. Tax cuts can easily happen. I have no idea why you think tax cuts aren't going to happen. Romney has given zero reason to think that he can reduce the deficit, and has only given you reasons that he will make it increase dramatically.
If you actually think Romney's just been completely lying and bullshitting this whole time about his plan, then what do you think he's going to do?
My point is that if the deficit is apparently a major issue, then Romney is blatantly the wrong choice.
Yes, I'm going to ignore everything Romney says, and I'm going to ignore everything Obama says. This is an election, if you actually listen to politicians during an election you are a fool in my humble opinion.
What you can't ignore is record. And based on their records, I do think that Romney would be better at cooperating with Congress to get a reduced deficit. The Democrat party, Obama included, has shown a consistent stubborn unwillingness to make REAL cuts, and not simply because we are in a recession. Meanwhile Romney's record is being a Republican governor in a very liberal state and still managing to get things done.
Also, one of the major powers of the presidency is the power to veto. I believe Romney is less likely to veto budget reform that includes cuts, and more likely to veto frivolous spending justified as stimulus.
Wow. Okay.
...Obama cut $500 billion from defense. He cut $716 billion from Medicare with the ACA. And that's just what I know off the top of my head.
Doing more significant cuts, or austerity, is incredibly dangerous to do during a recovery. Every single country that has done major cuts has had a double dip recession (including the UK). That is not a way to balance the budget...
Please. That $716 billion was sent straight to Obamacare. That's not a cut.
Eh. Fair enough. Still that does show fiscal responsibility and finding places for savings.
Or you could say that robbing $716 billion from Medicare to say that Obamacare is "revenue neutral" over tens years is incredibly cynical.
I hate the fact that we even have to rely on Obamacare.
single-payer healthcare where art thooouuuuuu.
Obama did everything he could but the republicans want to be the only country in the world without health care. they didn't let him have the 3 or 4 trillion dollars krugman says we needed to really fix our economy and then blame him when things aren't good enough for thier impossible imaginary standards.
republicans did everything short of leave the country to prevent obama from doing what we the majority of americans elected him to do. now they have media doing stories with stupid polls to get people to depressed to vote to get rid of obama
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
It's really simple. Republicans and Romney will reform and cut entitlements, which are the real problems. Obama and the democrats won't.
Well, I think everyone is going to reform Social Security because it's really easy to make S.S. solvent (and in fact a 2nd term president is more likely to do so than a 1st term president because the reforms will be slightly unpopular). And Romney/Ryan have gone on record saying they're reversing the ACA and not going to change Medicare in any way (not even vouchers, last I heard).
I mean, ACA DID reform and cut entitlements, it just wasn't the reform some people wanted.
What? Obamacare is a brand new entitlement that won't be revenue neutral after 10 years. It expands Medicaid and siphons money from Medicare. It doesn't significantly reform anything.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up.
1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably.
So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least.
This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts.
You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit.
I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit.
You can't get elected promising entitlement cuts. Everyone knows this. Do you think it is a coincidence he chose Ryan as his running mate? You have to read between the lines.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I never said he would be great for the deficit, I simply said likely better than Obama. What evidence has anyone presented so far that Obama would do a thing for the deficit? So far these are the points that have been brought up.
1) We shouldn't even reduce deficit because EU austerity = bad. 2) He spent more money on stimulus which probably helped the economy, we think. 3) The wars were being scaled back so we will give him credit for that inexplicably.
So yes, I do think Romney will be better, with regards to the deficit at least.
This is despite the fact that the republicans and Romney are all talking about tax cuts.
You know, those things that reduce revenue and increase the deficit.
I'm just baffled. Romney has made no suggestion of reducing the deficit anywhere in any of his policies. The only policies he's talked about would increase the deficit.
you have to look at his record, and since he has been so inconsistent when he says he wants to decrease taxes and increase military funding you actually have to infer the exact opposite. So he will increase taxes and decrease military funding ---> thus lower the deficit. Makes sense to me
much of the cost burden from govt programs is from all the rent seeking by the private industry around it. compare the expense and effective of the single payer nationalized veterans health system to medicare and you'll see that it can work in the u.s.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
Lifeline is a good example of costs spiraling out of control in government programs. What began as a cheap program grew into a behemoth.
isnt the reason most government programs spiral in cost due to the outsourcing of control to a private company who would actually rather do more work as it generates more profit, and then anyone who questions the increase in budget is stonewalled because of the people in charge being in the pocket or lobbyists? its not that government programs suck, its that theres so much money in US politics the politicians dont care.
On October 19 2012 11:21 DoubleReed wrote: Again, I have no idea how you can say that Romney would somehow be better for the deficit, when literally everything he has shown goes against that. You have no reason at all to think that.
I'm with Doublereed on this subject. I'm voting Obama because the economy has stopped freefalling and settled even under him - and even some slight growth now. I would love MORE growth, but I can accept lowered expectations.
I, however, do not thing that Romney - even with a cooperative congress - is going to improve our economic situation. I fear that we get dragged into a war with Iran, based on his and his party's comments. I don't agree with a tax cut for the rich. I'm willing to give Obama 4 more years - and hope that the Republican party evolves into a better party. That's why I'm voting Obama.
i really wish Obama would run on not just "ending tax breaks for the rich" but on raising the taxes and explaining to everyone why it is necessary. I'm not saying like france with 75% exactly though it's probably what we need. and since when did $250,000 become not rich? $100,000 is like double what most people make and 4 or 5 times what a lot of people make. that's pretty rich to me
I just found this really nice fact checking portal for the second debate, check it out at:Link
I think that the false doubling the deficit claim that Romney was so fond of in both debates was the most interesting one. I can't believe he can stand up there and lie like that in front of millions of people and get away with it.
For anyone that thinks that Romney will be good for the economy just think about how he has more extreme pro big business and finance than even Bush. How long will it take for people to understand that the republicans increase the GDP solely through the top 5% of wealthy people in the nation? We need the middle class to grow, and doubling down on the boom and bust model is not the way to do that. It is sad to me how many people they scare with the national debt because they can relate it to their own debt; when really they should be pissed as hell that middle income wages have stagnated since the republican god Regan brought about top down economics, which is what brought about that debt that they live under.
On October 19 2012 11:42 oneofthem wrote: much of the cost burden from govt programs is from all the rent seeking by the private industry around it. compare the expense and effective of the single payer nationalized veterans health system to medicare and you'll see that it can work in the u.s.
You really expect a government that can't even efficiently run snack bar service on Amtrak (much less Amtrak) to efficiently run our healthcare?
I don't think I could write LOL in a big enough font.
On October 19 2012 11:42 oneofthem wrote: much of the cost burden from govt programs is from all the rent seeking by the private industry around it. compare the expense and effective of the single payer nationalized veterans health system to medicare and you'll see that it can work in the u.s.
You really expect a government that can't even efficiently run snack bar service on Amtrak (much less Amtrak) to efficiently run our healthcare?
I don't think I could write LOL in a big enough font.
yes, health professionals are highly trained and responsible when they are acting like professional caretakers. maybe double the # of doctors. with government owned hospitals you can eliminate a lot of the superfluous medical "cost" typical of the bloat in the private system.
the VA health system is huge and pretty great. it's a mini nationalized healthcare system with its own hospitals and stuff. this is while dealing with generally elderly patients