|
|
On October 10 2012 18:12 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 09:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, Ok, no problem. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdfin order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures. So, according to the TPC there are plenty tax expenditures available to pay for a 20% cut in rates. Now, if you want to rephrase your statement to include other issues like the progressiveness of the tax system then you'd have a point. Kinda. If you go back to Simpson-Bowles large rate cuts were possible to pay for by broadening the base with the after-effect of increasing the progressiveness of the tax code. There are of course differences between Simpson-Bowles and Romney's plan that make maintaining the progressiveness of the tax code harder, namely the desire to eliminate the estate tax and maintain current rates on investment, but as we've discussed before what constitutes a tax expenditure that promotes savings and investment is debatable and so it is hard to be conclusive. And before you get all uppity about Romney over promising (*gasp* a politician that over promises!) let's not forget about the, ahem, 'creative accounting' that makes Obamacare possible. In in the very next paragraph it says: Show nested quote +In addition, this poses a direct challenge to preserving the same distribution of tax burdens as under the existing tax schedule because many of these available tax expenditures were designed to benefit lower- and middle-income households. For instance, Figure 2 compare the revenue arising from tax rate cuts and AMT and estate tax relief to the potential revenue that could be raised by eliminating the non-protected tax expenditures, by income group. The revenue reductions are concentrated in the middle- and higher-income levels, but the potential revenue raisers are even more concentrated among lower- and middle-income taxpayers. For the top income groups, revenue losses greatly outweigh the potential revenue available from base broadening.
As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above. This means that even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount And then it shows this graph: ![[image loading]](http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0802-chart/13335596-1-eng-US/0802-chart_full_600.jpg) This graphs shows that at the top, there isn't enough loopholes to close, such that the rich don't get a net tax cut. But isn't that what Romney said in the debate? That the rich won't be getting a tax cut. Well, it's not possible under his plan for the rich not to get a net tax cut. Another lie. And at the bottom? That's where most of the deductions are that are needed to make his plan revenue neutral. He would have to eliminate these loopholes, increasing net taxes on the poor and middle class to make it work.
The graph shows that there aren't enough tax expenditures to close on the rich if you use the TPC's assumptions about what is on the table / off the table. As I've said before, there's plenty of room to change those assumptions.
|
On October 10 2012 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote:
Here's what I find both ironic and sad about most of the Republican/Romney supporters in this thread.
Before the debate, where were you saying that Romney's healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions? When did you deny that Romney had a $5T tax plan? When did you argue that Romney was not going to reduce taxes on the rich?
I don't recall seeing any of these points before the debate. But ever since Romney made these declarations in the debate, you're now suddenly all out in force pedaling his flip-flops and lies as if they always were.
"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."
I still find it sad that no one supporting Obama is articulating exactly what the guy will do with another 4 years beyond throwing out old bills that have already been voted down.
So I guess its hope for a change in Congress...
|
On October 11 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 18:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 09:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, Ok, no problem. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdfin order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures. So, according to the TPC there are plenty tax expenditures available to pay for a 20% cut in rates. Now, if you want to rephrase your statement to include other issues like the progressiveness of the tax system then you'd have a point. Kinda. If you go back to Simpson-Bowles large rate cuts were possible to pay for by broadening the base with the after-effect of increasing the progressiveness of the tax code. There are of course differences between Simpson-Bowles and Romney's plan that make maintaining the progressiveness of the tax code harder, namely the desire to eliminate the estate tax and maintain current rates on investment, but as we've discussed before what constitutes a tax expenditure that promotes savings and investment is debatable and so it is hard to be conclusive. And before you get all uppity about Romney over promising (*gasp* a politician that over promises!) let's not forget about the, ahem, 'creative accounting' that makes Obamacare possible. In in the very next paragraph it says: In addition, this poses a direct challenge to preserving the same distribution of tax burdens as under the existing tax schedule because many of these available tax expenditures were designed to benefit lower- and middle-income households. For instance, Figure 2 compare the revenue arising from tax rate cuts and AMT and estate tax relief to the potential revenue that could be raised by eliminating the non-protected tax expenditures, by income group. The revenue reductions are concentrated in the middle- and higher-income levels, but the potential revenue raisers are even more concentrated among lower- and middle-income taxpayers. For the top income groups, revenue losses greatly outweigh the potential revenue available from base broadening.
As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above. This means that even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount And then it shows this graph: This graphs shows that at the top, there isn't enough loopholes to close, such that the rich don't get a net tax cut. But isn't that what Romney said in the debate? That the rich won't be getting a tax cut. Well, it's not possible under his plan for the rich not to get a net tax cut. Another lie. And at the bottom? That's where most of the deductions are that are needed to make his plan revenue neutral. He would have to eliminate these loopholes, increasing net taxes on the poor and middle class to make it work. The graph shows that there aren't enough tax expenditures to close on the rich if you use the TPC's assumptions about what is on the table / off the table. As I've said before, there's plenty of room to change those assumptions.
I think you're really arguing different points here. You're saying that there is a plan in existence that could make a 20% overall tax rate revenue neutral. The other side is saying that plan is incompatible with the promises Romney has made over the course of campaigning.
Do you agree or disagree that Romney will significantly have to walk back on at least one of the groups he has promised won't end up paying more taxes to implement a revenue-neutral proposal?
On October 11 2012 02:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote:
Here's what I find both ironic and sad about most of the Republican/Romney supporters in this thread.
Before the debate, where were you saying that Romney's healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions? When did you deny that Romney had a $5T tax plan? When did you argue that Romney was not going to reduce taxes on the rich?
I don't recall seeing any of these points before the debate. But ever since Romney made these declarations in the debate, you're now suddenly all out in force pedaling his flip-flops and lies as if they always were.
"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia." I still find it sad that no one supporting Obama is articulating exactly what the guy will do with another 4 years beyond throwing out old bills that have already been voted down. So I guess its hope for a change in Congress...
There's zero reason to believe that a bill is bad just because it didn't pass, especially given that the makeup of Congress is likely to change significantly come November. I mean, a bill that gets voted down is not really indicative of the quality of the bill in the current political climate.
And if Congress doesn't change, it's not like Romney will get anything done either, so who cares? The Democrats in the Senate will just filibuster him to hell and back. "Compromise" is a fairy tale in the current climate, no matter what Romney or Obama says in the debates.
|
On October 10 2012 09:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 08:50 dvorakftw wrote:On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:
Just to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. Be a dear and find us total government spending in the United States for education in billions of dollars. You... Do... Know..... That % spending is across the board, so whatever is spent as the 4% the 22% is going to reflect the difference in percentile lol. Ermm, most education spending is at the state and local level... why are you looking at just the federal government's budget? In 2012 the US will spend about $910B on education and $902B on defense. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_20t30t
Aw. I wanted to see if they could figure it out for themselves. Well, I guess it's good you did because they seemed content to not bother and just remain indignant.
btw, for all the complaints a dozen pages ago about too much spending on 'explosions that look good on camera' you're in the same boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there's always the supreme court to fight over.
|
On October 10 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 09:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 08:50 dvorakftw wrote:On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:
Just to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. Be a dear and find us total government spending in the United States for education in billions of dollars. You... Do... Know..... That % spending is across the board, so whatever is spent as the 4% the 22% is going to reflect the difference in percentile lol. Ermm, most education spending is at the state and local level... why are you looking at just the federal government's budget? In 2012 the US will spend about $910B on education and $902B on defense. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_20t30t I never argued the statistics were real I simply stated "Be a dear and find x money" when someone gives you a percentile that is supposed to match up is redundant, if you have a complaint or rebut just state it. A better way would have been to show his numbers were off.
This page has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I just feel the title is appropriate.
|
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/576526_4767984601784_594744881_n.jpg)
seriously, try it for yourself.
|
On October 10 2012 09:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 09:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 08:50 dvorakftw wrote:On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:
Just to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. Be a dear and find us total government spending in the United States for education in billions of dollars. You... Do... Know..... That % spending is across the board, so whatever is spent as the 4% the 22% is going to reflect the difference in percentile lol. Ermm, most education spending is at the state and local level... why are you looking at just the federal government's budget? In 2012 the US will spend about $910B on education and $902B on defense. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_20t30t Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy. In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
Of course the case can be made for increased military spending.
And US military spending isn't what's going to cost us over 200 trillion dollars that we don't have.
|
On October 11 2012 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:seriously, try it for yourself.
Oh wow. This is hilarious.
|
On October 11 2012 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 02:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 18:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 09:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP.
As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, Ok, no problem. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdfin order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures. So, according to the TPC there are plenty tax expenditures available to pay for a 20% cut in rates. Now, if you want to rephrase your statement to include other issues like the progressiveness of the tax system then you'd have a point. Kinda. If you go back to Simpson-Bowles large rate cuts were possible to pay for by broadening the base with the after-effect of increasing the progressiveness of the tax code. There are of course differences between Simpson-Bowles and Romney's plan that make maintaining the progressiveness of the tax code harder, namely the desire to eliminate the estate tax and maintain current rates on investment, but as we've discussed before what constitutes a tax expenditure that promotes savings and investment is debatable and so it is hard to be conclusive. And before you get all uppity about Romney over promising (*gasp* a politician that over promises!) let's not forget about the, ahem, 'creative accounting' that makes Obamacare possible. In in the very next paragraph it says: In addition, this poses a direct challenge to preserving the same distribution of tax burdens as under the existing tax schedule because many of these available tax expenditures were designed to benefit lower- and middle-income households. For instance, Figure 2 compare the revenue arising from tax rate cuts and AMT and estate tax relief to the potential revenue that could be raised by eliminating the non-protected tax expenditures, by income group. The revenue reductions are concentrated in the middle- and higher-income levels, but the potential revenue raisers are even more concentrated among lower- and middle-income taxpayers. For the top income groups, revenue losses greatly outweigh the potential revenue available from base broadening.
As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above. This means that even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount And then it shows this graph: This graphs shows that at the top, there isn't enough loopholes to close, such that the rich don't get a net tax cut. But isn't that what Romney said in the debate? That the rich won't be getting a tax cut. Well, it's not possible under his plan for the rich not to get a net tax cut. Another lie. And at the bottom? That's where most of the deductions are that are needed to make his plan revenue neutral. He would have to eliminate these loopholes, increasing net taxes on the poor and middle class to make it work. The graph shows that there aren't enough tax expenditures to close on the rich if you use the TPC's assumptions about what is on the table / off the table. As I've said before, there's plenty of room to change those assumptions. I think you're really arguing different points here. You're saying that there is a plan in existence that could make a 20% overall tax rate revenue neutral. The other side is saying that plan is incompatible with the promises Romney has made over the course of campaigning. Do you agree or disagree that Romney will significantly have to walk back on at least one of the groups he has promised won't end up paying more taxes to implement a revenue-neutral proposal?
Well like I said in a previous post Romney almost certainly over promised... at least in terms of what people interpret his promises to be. For example, maintaining tax provisions that encourage savings and investment can be interpreted to mean a number of different things.
Now is Romney over promising a bad thing? Sure, but its also par for the course in politics and I don't think that the degree to which he has over promised is excessive by any means. A few tweaks around the edges and Romney's plan could be reworked to be more progressive... and he's expressed a willingness to embrace changes to his plan to make it work. Realistically his plan would most likely be reworked -- a lot -- on its journey through Congress and so arguing over a few details pre-election seems a waste.
In any case tax reform is an important issue to a lot of people. I think its sad that Obama didn't counter Romney by offering his own tax reform and has instead just insisted that a few parts of the Bush tax cut be allowed to expire.
|
On October 10 2012 09:41 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 09:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 09:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 08:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 08:50 dvorakftw wrote:On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:
Just to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. Be a dear and find us total government spending in the United States for education in billions of dollars. You... Do... Know..... That % spending is across the board, so whatever is spent as the 4% the 22% is going to reflect the difference in percentile lol. Ermm, most education spending is at the state and local level... why are you looking at just the federal government's budget? In 2012 the US will spend about $910B on education and $902B on defense. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111mcn_20t30t Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy. In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start. The federal budget allocates 4% to education, and 22% to defense. Check my link earlier. States and local governments pay the lion's share of education, though the overall amount of education spending is decreasing.
Yeah I'm going to have to ask for a source on that.
I can't get the actual image to link and I'm too lazy to look around but here's a picture of education spending that shows as a percent of GDP it's rarely been higher.
I'll grant it would not be surprising to see a decrease in the last few years as Obama has done such a thorough job of slowing the recovery of our economy, making funding resources more scarce.
|
On October 10 2012 09:43 Souma wrote:
Do we honestly think the right is serious about cutting the deficit?
Be a dear and tell the class what the deficit was in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In exchange I will tell you the deficits during Obama's term and we can compare.
While we may argue about whether it's possible to not raise taxes on the middle-class and remain revenue-neutral if we cut taxes by $4.8 trillion, it's a much tougher feat when we're also planning on raising defense spending by $2 trillion. And don't forget the repeal of Obamacare would add another $100 billion to the deficit.
If we were really serious about decreasing the deficit, we'd nationalize the healthcare system so Medicare wouldn't bite us in the ass. It also helps when employers don't have to worry about shelling out money for health insurance.
Okay, wow. Just wow. I don't even... I'm going to have to defer on this because I can't think of an appropriate response right now. That is just so.... Wow.
|
On October 10 2012 11:21 oneofthem wrote:
I don't actually know the answer to this but i suspect romney's pointed emphasis on increasing defense spending is a conscious political calculation to appeal to the ratchet-gear action of the military's expansion.
more precisely stated, the temporary war time expansion of military personnel increased the number of people dependent on military and made them more politically important, as well as the importance of military associated industry/contractors whathaveyou. this political balance shift means it is now harder to cut that entrenched interest down. romney is obviously not thinking about the good of anything when he is proposing the budget. he understands it as the cheapest way of purchasing political support. cheapest in terms of political cost obviously
this is actually a very libertarian idea. would be interesting to know the total number of military dependents, including their families.
So.... you are saying Romney figures a majority of Americans are dependent on military spending and will therefore vote for him. How many would you estimate? Maybe about 53%?
|
On October 10 2012 13:10 aksfjh wrote:
No longer are polls telling a new story.
Once I manage to wrap my head around the idea that the solution to government deficits is a complete takeover of health spending I'll see if I can find something for you.
|
Obama on last week's debate: 'I was just too polite'
President Obama acknowledged criticism of last week’s debate performance from within his own party Wednesday, telling radio host Tom Joyner that the main problem was that he didn’t attack Mitt Romney.
“I think it’s fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, it’s hard to sometimes just keep on saying, ‘And what you’re saying isn’t true,’” Obama said. “It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is that’s just the first one.”
The president added that in the next debate, scheduled for Oct. 16, “we will see a little more activity.” He also said that Vice President Biden would be “terrific” in his debate Thursday with Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.
Obama also pushed back against his own supporters’ doomsaying.
“By next week I think a lot of the hand-wringing will be complete because we’re gonna go ahead and win this thing,” he said. Comparing the election to basketball, Obama said, “You have a seven-game series, we’re up two-zero, and we lose one.”
He ended with a promise: “We’ve got four weeks left in the election and we’re going to take it to him.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/10/obama-on-debate-i-was-just-too-polite/?wprss=rss_politics
|
On October 10 2012 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote:
Here's what I find both ironic and sad about most of the Republican/Romney supporters in this thread.
Before the debate, where were you saying that Romney's healthcare plan covers preexisting conditions? When did you deny that Romney had a $5T tax plan? When did you argue that Romney was not going to reduce taxes on the rich?
I don't recall seeing any of these points before the debate. But ever since Romney made these declarations in the debate, you're now suddenly all out in force pedaling his flip-flops and lies as if they always were.
"We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."
Before the debate we also didn't talk about Big Bird.
|
|
|
On October 11 2012 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:seriously, try it for yourself.
Wow, it's like I'm back in 2004 when Google bombing helped Kerry defeat the incompetent Dubya.
|
So that 100 billion more in military budget would prevent which country to attack you exactly?
|
Coming back to these.
On October 10 2012 07:23 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not saying stop using oil now, I'm talking formulating a long-term strategy that involves heavy investment into developing clean energy technologies and into making our existing energy usage more efficient. We're not doing that.
Except we are. Solar power has been steady improving for decades. It just needs a few decades more before it's ready for mass scale domestic use. New nuclear plant designs are available now despite going decades without any new plants being built and other countries foolishly giving up on them. In StarCraft terms, Obama did an anti-timing attack before the upgrades completed. A costly blunder.
How so? You mean like joining the USSR on the ash heap of history?
Yes.
Meh. It's more likely the United States of America in 2100 will include Canada and Mexico sorta like what Europe tried except successful.
Oh, I thought it was some communist joke. Don't go calling me a fascist or whatever and then complain about civility.
Don't recall calling you a fascist but it is possible I called you a whatever which I do not believe is uncivil.
By "some of Marx himself" do you mean the Manifesto? Doesn't count. that's fine, though, you don't have to know about it, just don't go telling people who do know about it a bunch of uninformed stuff like "no difference between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism" then I wouldn't have to get my panties all in a knot
You ever see the South Park episodes where Cartman can't wait for the Nintedo Wii release so he freezes himself and ends up in the future?
I got as much interest in YouTube videos as you have in contemporary Marxism.
A failure to appreciate the genius of Rocky and Bullwinkle. So sad.
The fact remains, though, the [Chinese]'re about to eat our collective lunch and we're letting them.
China needs us more than we need them and they won't surpass us as long as they continue to sabotage their full potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
