US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[flying ^]

Chris Mathews: "Tonight just wasn't an MSNBC debate, was it?"

... he even criticized 0bama for going out there like a sourpuss with his head down.....OK, I added sourpuss.

Chris is pissed... no tingle tonight!

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by flying ^

Chris Mathews: "Tonight just wasn't an MSNBC debate, was it?"

... he even criticized 0bama for going out there like a sourpuss with his head down.....OK, I added sourpuss.

Chris is pissed... no tingle tonight!

I saw that earlier on the corvetteforum. Good entertainment for sure.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I saw that earlier on the corvetteforum. Good entertainment for sure.

i have a plasma TV and 2 ipads, and they're tuned to the following:


plasma - CNN
CNN post debate coverage is... just that... CNN quality

ipad 1 - FOX NEWS
more professional grade coverage (for a supposed 'partisan' channel) under Van Sustren... will veer to niche audience when Hannity appears.

ipad 3 - MSNBC
... wow

[Mr. DJ]

FOX sure as hell isn't bipartisan

[Netto Azure]

This is the best part of the debate.

Romney: "I like Big Bird, But I'm still defunding PBS Jim."

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

FOX sure as hell isn't bipartisan

Greta Van Susteren is one of their somewhat more independent journalists and I'll actually credit her with the title "journalist" instead of "stupid moron"

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

This is the best part of the debate.

Romney: "I like Big Bird, But I'm still defunding PBS Jim."

Federal Funding is a small part of where they get their money. He only wants to cut the Federal part of it. They can survive without the Government.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

This is the best part of the debate.

Romney: "I like Big Bird, But I'm still defunding PBS Jim."

That one is hilarious!

[Ithekro]

The White House turkey dinner legs will be huge next year? Or will Big Bird be the one that gets the Presidential pardon.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Federal Funding is a small part of where they get their money. He only wants to cut the Federal part of it. They can survive without the Government.

Oh I know that. But the Federal funds go to local stations. (Ranges around 30% of funding I believe for these stations) Which is a lot more important to many rural areas. Private donations usually go to production.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Federal Funding is a small part of where they get their money. He only wants to cut the Federal part of it. They can survive without the Government.

That is correct, the actual anti-argument is how many millions of "Big Bird" instances one would have to find to balance the budget without putting defense under scrutiny or the medicare/medicaid budgets.

The sad bit of nonsense with Romney's "Obama cut $700B from Medicare" is that Obama *saved* $700B by eliminating wasted monies that weren't going to patient care anyway. Translation: for-profits will profit less.

That's exactly the same kind of savings Romney would have to do.

To some extent, the federal support of public broadcasting is similar to the "Rural Electrification Act" that brought electricity to farms ... or the deals the telecoms had to cut to extend wireless to rural locales. My state would get by, but many other states would simply lose it.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Vexx

That's exactly the same kind of savings Romney would have to do.

Not surprisingly it's the same "Savings" that's been proposed by the Romney camp. Other than turning Medicare into a "premium support" program AKA Romney/Obamacare for seniors.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Translation: for-profits will profit less.

That's exactly the same kind of savings Romney would have to do.

''Would have to do. '': Yes but it's the kind of thing so opposite to him, so conter-intuitive than I doubt than he could do it even if he wanted.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

That is correct, the actual anti-argument is how many millions of "Big Bird" instances one would have to find to balance the budget without putting defense under scrutiny or the medicare/medicaid budgets.

The sad bit of nonsense with Romney's "Obama cut $700B from Medicare" is that Obama *saved* $700B by eliminating wasted monies that weren't going to patient care anyway. Translation: for-profits will profit less.

That's exactly the same kind of savings Romney would have to do.

To some extent, the federal support of public broadcasting is similar to the "Rural Electrification Act" that brought electricity to farms ... or the deals the telecoms had to cut to extend wireless to rural locales. My state would get by, but many other states would simply lose it.

With 1.1+ trillion dollar deficits, practically everything needs to be on the table to be cut. Everything.

[Ithekro]

Rumor has it that even if they cut everything aside from obligation funds (money the government it obligated to pay every year) the deficit still grows by some millions of dollars because the income base isn't even up to the government's obligations. That is the rumor.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

With 1.1+ trillion dollar deficits, practically everything needs to be on the table to be cut. Everything.

With no revenue increases? Then again continuing this line of thought will just get us into the topic of of Austerity or counter-cyclical fiscal policy and the merits doing tax-cuts and increased government spending during bad economic times.

Which becomes circular argument altogether. u_u

Personally IMO unless we switch into a healthcare funding system akin to other western democracies, our deficits and debt cannot be handled at all in the long term without getting rid of social programs that much of the American public supports. (Like California's Democratic heart and Republican wallet paradox)

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Netto Azure

With no revenue increases? Then again continuing this line of thought will just get us into the topic of of Austerity or counter-cyclical fiscal policy and the merits doing tax-cuts and increased government spending during bad economic times.

Which becomes circular argument altogether. u_u

Personally IMO unless we switch into a healthcare funding system akin to other western democracies, our deficits and debt cannot be handled at all in the long term without getting rid of social programs that much of the American public supports. (Like California's Democratic heart and Republican wallet paradox)

The government is too big, too corrupt, and too inefficient. Regardless of how any of us believes the Government can bring in more cash, it won't use that extra revenue to pay anything down. It will instead, use it to either increase the size of programs, or create new ones. Regardless of what Party is in power, all they know how to do, is spend. Everything needs to be cut or reformed. Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you name it.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The government is too big, too corrupt, and too inefficient. Regardless of how any of us believes the Government can bring in more cash, it won't use that extra revenue to pay anything down. It will instead, use it to either increase the size of programs, or create new ones. Regardless of what Party is in power, all they know how to do, is spend. Everything needs to be cut or reformed. Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you name it.

I am afraid I have to agree with Justin on this; however there are elements which I disagree, which includes the element of cutting Medicare and Mediaid.

A sick nation can't produce anything, neither can a poorly paid individual take care of himself to produce something; there has to be a workaround, which unfortunately both parties are too busy antagonising each other to come up with something like that.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The government is too big, too corrupt, and too inefficient. Regardless of how any of us believes the Government can bring in more cash, it won't use that extra revenue to pay anything down. It will instead, use it to either increase the size of programs, or create new ones. Regardless of what Party is in power, all they know how to do, is spend. Everything needs to be cut or reformed. Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you name it.

I think that's an ideological debate that is somewhat self-perpetrating or fulfilling. If you elect officials that believe government "is too big, too corrupt, and too inefficient" then that would be what you will get.

On the other hand I'm willing to do some austerity, but not in the middle of a recession or economically weak time. Much evidence (AKA Britain and the EuroZone) have shown how abrupt austerity leads to double-dip recessions.

[james0246]

^

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am afraid I have to agree with Justin on this; however there are elements which I disagree, which includes the element of cutting Medicare and Mediaid.

A sick nation can't produce anything, neither can a poorly paid individual take care of himself to produce something; there has to be a workaround, which unfortunately both parties are too busy antagonising each other to come up with something like that.

Why are you afraid? . Justin is correct that a complete overhaul needs to take place. Sadly, workarounnds are all that are possible anymore, so a candidate that creates the most efficient workarounds must be chosen, and that (of the two candidates) is Obama.