|
|
On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music.
The thing about the primary debates is that all Romney had to do was not say anything stupid and watch the other candidates implode. While I'm sure he'll score some points against Obama, being in an actual one-on-one debate means that Romney is eventually going to have to commit to some actual positions if he doesn't want to sound unprepared, which might hurt his attempts to curry favor with disparate wings of the GOP.
|
Frankly, Romney should be debating Biden and Ryan should be debating Obama. That would actually be far more interesting.
|
On August 15 2012 03:29 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. The thing about the primary debates is that all Romney had to do was not say anything stupid and watch the other candidates implode. While I'm sure he'll score some points against Obama, being in an actual one-on-one debate means that Romney is eventually going to have to commit to some actual positions if he doesn't want to sound unprepared, which might hurt his attempts to curry favor with disparate wings of the GOP.
I think that by picking Paul Ryan, Romney has signaled that there are likely to be more details forthcoming regarding his future plans.
|
On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading."
Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it.
Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train.
|
On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details.
Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.).
|
Obama's 2013 budget is already blown (& Ryan's too).
Treasury revenues are going to come in at $2.4 trillion, around $50-$75 billion short of what they wanted at $2.47 trillion. Only 6 weeks left to go in the Federal FY12, and that is pretty well firmed up.
Obama had a 2013 revenue estimate of $2.9 trillion. 21% increase in revenue? I don't care if they were counting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expiring and raising revenue. +21% was never going to happen.
Paul Ryan's estimate isn't much better. His FY13 revenue estimate is $2.734 trillion... or a 14% increase from what FY12 will actually be.
|
On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.).
It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing.
|
On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train.
Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them.
|
On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing.
No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it.
|
On August 15 2012 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train. Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them.
This just in, expecting the other side in a debate to provide reasoned arguments, sources, and politeness = intolerance.
|
On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it.
If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you.
|
On August 15 2012 04:25 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train. Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them. This just in, expecting the other side in a debate to provide reasoned arguments, sources, and politeness = intolerance.
All of that's fine except for the fact there's a ridiculous double standard with regards to what is expected of someone like me versus what the average liberal poster throws out there. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me. I'm just pointing it out.
|
On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2012 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
In case anyone missed it, the debate schedule was announced yesterday. The first one will take place on October 3. Personally, I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Ryan is going to run circles around Biden. How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading."
You seem to be the one who doesn't "understand." A bill doesn't go through the Senate or House with 0 votes unless there's a damn good reason behind it. In this case, the bill brought forth didn't even attempt to fill in any gaps in Obama's original proposal. There was PLENTY there in the proposal to draft real, meaningful legislation, even if the original document wasn't written in legal language.
Even then, there's at least 40 fucking pages of individual program funding proposals in the original budget. In the document submitted by Congressman Sessions, all it does is state the full year expenditures/revenue of major budget items, like Social Security, Postal Service, revenue, and military. No itemized lists, no specifics, just the final cost. That's all it is, 10 years of projections for major expenditures and departments.
Proposed GOP bill that "represents" the President's budget:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sconres41pcs/pdf/BILLS-112sconres41pcs.pdf
Actual proposal by the President:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf
For comparison, the "budget in brief" for 2010. This is a reader-friendly version of the 2010 budget that was 1,900 pages long in bill form. In the brief summary, it's still over 140 pages long.
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/10BIB/2010 budget in brief final.pdf
|
On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you.
Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 15 2012 04:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:25 TrickyGilligan wrote:On August 15 2012 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
How do you see Obama vs Romney going? I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass. More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train. Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them. This just in, expecting the other side in a debate to provide reasoned arguments, sources, and politeness = intolerance. All of that's fine except for the fact there's a ridiculous double standard with regards to what is expected of someone like me versus what the average liberal poster throws out there. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me. I'm just pointing it out.
There isn't a ridiculous double standard, your bias is really getting to you. From what I deduce you seem like the type to choose a side then desperately rationalize any arguments in favor of that side. Every refutation a "liberal" poster has thrown at you, you try to reason yourself out of it fallaciously or by leaving out facts detrimental to your argument.
I don't believe the people debating with you are intolerant of you but rather the way you seem to pick at straws, and from the eyes of a third party it seems justified. Yes some "liberal" posters do post trash, but from what I can see they are not the ones debating with you now.
And I hate this logic of yours: just because someone else posts trash, you're justified to post trash as well? Or just because the Democrats did not post details in their budget, Republicans didn't either? It's arguments like that that allows standards to be kept low and let people sit on their ass and do nothing. From someone as intelligent as you are I am hoping you can rise above all of that.
|
Ryan's "deficit reduction" plan: let Wall Street pay zero percent in taxes. Slice discretionary spending to 3 percent of the GDP. (The military right now is 4.7 percent alone, and somehow Ryan will defend that from any cuts whatsoever). Without any real world empirical data, his own projections assume unemployment would fall to 2.8 percent; a rate not seen since we fought Japan in World War Two. The 2.8 percent projection was so laughable even the Heritage Foundation pulled it from their website. His savings have no empirical evidence supporting the assertions. Paul Ryan's math doesn't add up.
He voted for the unpaid war in Iraq, the unpaid war in Afghanistan, the Bush stimulus, the Bush banking bailout, the Bush auto rescue, the Highway to Nowhere in Alaska, Medicare Part D (unpaid for subsidization of the health industry that would make any self-respecting free-market libertarian cringe), sucking dry the US rainy day fund Bill Clinton left us (by voting to raise the deficit ceiling into the trillions in boom times), budget busting tax cuts, etc. etc. He alone has cast more votes for proposals whose sum total on the deficit far exceeds the cost of the stimulus and Obamacare combined. Real fiscal conservative we have here.
Oh, I forgot. He's "bold", "visionary," and "serious". Not being able to do arithmetic is somehow synonymous to this nowadays.
|
On August 15 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:25 TrickyGilligan wrote:On August 15 2012 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass.
More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train. Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them. This just in, expecting the other side in a debate to provide reasoned arguments, sources, and politeness = intolerance. All of that's fine except for the fact there's a ridiculous double standard with regards to what is expected of someone like me versus what the average liberal poster throws out there. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me. I'm just pointing it out. There isn't a ridiculous double standard, your bias is really getting to you. From what I deduce you seem like the type to choose a side then desperately rationalize any arguments in favor of that side. Every refutation a "liberal" poster has thrown at you, you try to reason yourself out of it fallaciously or by leaving out facts detrimental to your argument. I don't believe the people debating with you are intolerant of you but rather the way you seem to pick at straws, and from the eyes of a third party it seems justified. Yes some "liberal" posters do post trash, but from what I can see they are not the ones debating with you now. And I hate this logic of yours: just because someone elses posts trash, you're justified to post trash as well? Or just because the Democrats did not post details in their budget, Republicans didn't either? It's arguments like that that allows standards to be kept low and let people sit on their ass and do nothing. From someone as intelligent as you are I am hoping you can rise above all of that.
For the record, there have been instances where I have gotten something completely wrong and admitted as such.
|
On August 15 2012 04:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:On August 15 2012 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:25 TrickyGilligan wrote:On August 15 2012 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:53 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:19 SkyCrawler wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. I'm not surprised. You've always been misleading so I never take anything you post seriously anymore. Smart people generally take the time to understand the issue and the conversation before labeling someone's post as "misleading." Yes, put the onus on the reader to understand you. And when they don't, tell them they are stupid, partisan, misleading, or something else. I read "Obama's 2012 budget was shot down 97-0 in the Senate...etc" without much else. How can anyone believe that at face value? And yet you leave nothing else (not even an article) there for people to see what you are actually saying or trying to say. We can assume you mean this or that based on how pro-republican you've been and interpret this as a pro-republican spin on whatever might have happened. But that hardly narrows down what you were actually trying to say. Hell, you know this forum is filled with pro-dems and the like and you know most of your posts have frustrated many, yet you continue to be vague and attack other people's posts. If you were diplomatic, if you actually elaborated your position in your initial post instead of posting soundbites, it wouldn't take pages and pages to clarify what you say. And you complain about being misunderstood. You want to be misunderstood so you can argue about it. Talk about lying on the train tracks and complaining you got hit by train. Ah yes, the great hypocrisy of many liberals (let me stress: not all, there are plenty of cool liberals in this thread): their absolute intolerance of people who disagree with them. This just in, expecting the other side in a debate to provide reasoned arguments, sources, and politeness = intolerance. All of that's fine except for the fact there's a ridiculous double standard with regards to what is expected of someone like me versus what the average liberal poster throws out there. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me. I'm just pointing it out. There isn't a ridiculous double standard, your bias is really getting to you. From what I deduce you seem like the type to choose a side then desperately rationalize any arguments in favor of that side. Every refutation a "liberal" poster has thrown at you, you try to reason yourself out of it fallaciously or by leaving out facts detrimental to your argument. I don't believe the people debating with you are intolerant of you but rather the way you seem to pick at straws, and from the eyes of a third party it seems justified. Yes some "liberal" posters do post trash, but from what I can see they are not the ones debating with you now. And I hate this logic of yours: just because someone elses posts trash, you're justified to post trash as well? Or just because the Democrats did not post details in their budget, Republicans didn't either? It's arguments like that that allows standards to be kept low and let people sit on their ass and do nothing. From someone as intelligent as you are I am hoping you can rise above all of that. For the record, there have been instances where I have gotten something completely wrong and admitted as such.
You refuted nothing he said.
|
On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:06 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 02:43 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 02:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I think people are going to be surprised at how well Romney does. He was consistently one of the top performers during the primary debates, and very solid overall. I also think that Obama is incredibly overrated with regards to debates. Let's be honest with ourselves: McCain was a weak opponent who pulled all sorts of punches in pursuit of his misguided ideal of having an "honorable" election. Romney is not going to give Obama that same pass.
More importantly, Obama is not going to be able to get by strictly on rhetoric anymore. He has a record that he's going to have to explain. I'm sure that he'll do his best to make the conversation about Romney (just look at all the discussion in this thread about Romney and Ryan's plans and the lack of discussion about what Obama has put on the table [not that there's much]), but, to an extent, he's going to have to face the music. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf I wasn't aware that anyone was going to take seriously a budget that had already been rejected by the senate 97-0. Who says there's no bipartisanship in Washington? EDIT: Sorry, it was Obama's 2012 budget that was shot down 97-0 in the Senate. Obama's 2013 budget was rejected 99-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House. While the Sessions and Mulvaney bills put forward the same topline numbers as those in the president’s budget, neither offered any specifics. The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/Talk about not sharing the entire story xDaunt. I don't know why, but I expected more from you... Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion.
I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well?
Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point.
|
Both candidates reluctance to give a totally clear budget makes me think there's actually no answer to the problem. I think that any solution will have really obvious draw backs, meaning that the first one to give the most info will receive the most backlash. There are obviously a lot of people on both sides trying to find good solutions, but I think everyone is stumped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
