Quiet here today

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495213
Here. save yourself two hours of grief. Read the edited versions...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-romney-truth-debate-article-1.1174495
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
From your own link
THE FACTS:
Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today#post_3495212
You don't get it. PBS is just a talking point for Romney. "Let's cut discretionary spending, so let's whack useless programs like PBS that only benefit a small sector of the American population" PBS' 2012 budget allocation for the TV part was around $222 million. These two stupid candidates have spent FIVE TIMES that amount just on their campaigns. Instead of wasting that money on pointless little attack ads, they could've donated that money to PBS, and they'd have operational capital until 2017. The PBS budget represents about .0014% of the annual federal budget. I've told you 100 times that discretionary spending on piddly programs like PBS aren't our economic problems - SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MILITARY. Getting rid of every "discretionary" program wouldn't give you enough cash to erven pay the interest on the current deficit. Now Romney wants to cut taxes even more, which means less taxable revenue, which means a higher deficit.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139816/-Mitt-Romney-vows-to-fire-Big-Bird-to-save-0-00014-of-the-budget
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/
Most economic analyst state Romney's tax cut plan will increas the deficit by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years, if not more.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-04/the-real-story-about-romneys-tax-cut-plan
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
What I read is PBS gets about 450 million a year but even if it's only 222 million so what? It's a start. It's money we don't have to spend and it's not funding any vital programs. And what does the amount spent on campaigns have to do with it other than the money they are spending probably created more jobs than 0bama's stimulus package.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm
Please. Cutting corporate taxes and rich people's taxes was tried by Bush and it was an epic fail. That's the Republican manta - whack taxes with the theory that businesses will start spending money. Problem is, you whack taxes, you whack revenues. Whack revenues and the defiicit soars. Isn't that what you're railing on Obama about in the first place?
See, this is what makes me laugh and vomit at the same time. You cry over cutting taxes on the "greedy rich and corporations", but you haven't a single word for the $800 billion handout to the big banks by Obama? Money that never went to helping the poor and middle class, just profit for the "greedy rich and corporations". You can't muster one word of outrage at Obama's $800 billion welfare to big banks? And, since you are so oblivious to that corrupt payoff to Obama's biggest campaign contributors of 2008, the Fed is loaning money to the big, greedy banks at .15-.5% interest, while borrowing money to pay for that handout to "big, greedy corporations" at 8%. Meanwhile, where's the help to stop the poor and middle class save their homes from foreclosure? Oh, the 1-3% of underwater homeowners who are getting loan modifications through a Federal program that PAYS THE BIG, GREEDY BANKS to not foreclose after Obama gave them hundreds of billions of $. Come on Bionic, where's the outrage at Obama's epic fail at corporate welfare that has bankrupted our economy and helped no one but "greedy rich and corporations"? At least tax cuts encourage financial productivity, Obama's corporate welfare merely gave them pure profit after they destroyed our economy. Where's your outrage?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Fleetwood Mac was better.  MUCH better.  Why watch it when i can just go to all these media sites you're talking about and get the edited version.  Saves me 2 hours of grief and boredom.
Because the editted version doesn't tell you as much. You are still talking about tax cuts.Had you actually watched the debate instead of reading the "cliff notes for lazy people" version...You would know Romney stated he would RAISE the corporate tax rate. Does that sound like a tax cut?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495216
From your own link
THE FACTS:
Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.
Read it again. Romney's tax cuts will add $5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495223
See, this is what makes me laugh and vomit at the same time. You cry over cutting taxes on the "greedy rich and corporations", but you haven't a single word for the $800 billion handout to the big banks by Obama? Money that never went to helping the poor and middle class, just profit for the "greedy rich and corporations". You can't muster one word of outrage at Obama's $800 billion welfare to big banks? And, since you are so oblivious to that corrupt payoff to Obama's biggest campaign contributors of 2008, the Fed is loaning money to the big, greedy banks at .15-.5% interest, while borrowing money to pay for that handout to "big, greedy corporations" at 8%. Meanwhile, where's the help to stop the poor and middle class save their homes from foreclosure? Oh, the 1-3% of underwater homeowners who are getting loan modifications through a Federal program that PAYS THE BIG, GREEDY BANKS to not foreclose after Obama gave them hundreds of billions of $. Come on Bionic, where's the outrage at Obama's epic fail at corporate welfare that has bankrupted our economy and helped no one but "greedy rich and corporations"? At least tax cuts encourage financial productivity, Obama's corporate welfare merely gave them pure profit after they destroyed our economy. Where's your outrage?
Dude, that $800 million was from a program that BUSH created. It landed on the books in 2009. Same thing with the housing collapse. Remember Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (oh yeah, those stinking Democrats in Congress). Interesting how you blame Democrats in Congress during Bush years, but it's all Obama's fault even though the Republicans have controlled the House the last two years. Again, where this "encouraging financial productivity" since 2002 when the Bush tax Credits went into effect?

Bank Bailouts

The Claim: Mitt Romney said the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 designated five U.S. banks as too big to fail and gave them “a blank check,” contributing to the collapse of smaller banks. “We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks,” he said, asserting it has contributed to the closing of 122 community banks.
The Background: The Dodd-Frank financial overhaul was enacted in July of 2010 to impose regulation on some of the riskiest practices that contributed to the financial meltdown. One provision created a protocol under which the largest, most complex financial institutions would be wound down safely, without lasting taxpayer burden, should they fail. Nine banks -- including five of the largest U.S. banks -- have submitted so- called “living wills” to U.S. banking regulators to map out how they would be dismantled under bankruptcy. If their bankruptcies threatened the financial system, Dodd-Frank gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. authority to liquidate them itself.
The Facts: Romney was off base. There is no connection between the failure of community banks and the provision in Dodd-Frank designed to contain the harm from the failure of a big bank. FDIC statistics show that 37 banks, not five, have enough assets to come under that provision
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495227
Because the editted version doesn't tell you as much. You are still talking about tax cuts.Had you actually watched the debate instead of reading the "cliff notes for lazy people" version...You would know Romney stated he would RAISE the corporate tax rate. Does that sound like a tax cut?
You must've been playing that drinking game I found when you heard that. Here's a link to the entire transcript of last night's debate. Show me where Romney said he would RAISE corporate tax rates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=all
As a matter of fact, this is what Obama stated about that issue:
When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. So I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.
This is what Romney said:
And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/romney-says-most-workers-at-small-businesses-will-see-a-tax-hit-heres-why-hes-wrong/
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Funny how Obama keeps taking credit for saving the financial system with that $800 billion bailout then, isn't it? Secondly, you are either lying like usual or just ignorant. The $800 billion stimulus was passed by the democrat controlled house and senate and signed by The Messiah. Bushes $300 billion bailout was a stop-gap(and opposed by almost all republicans) and deemed insufficient by your Messiah. And, as usual, you go off on a tangent to distract from the truth. It was Geitner who determined who was too big to fail-The Messiah's guy. So, making the rich richer only bothers you when a republican does it? Like I said, you make me want to laugh and puke at the same time, because you are a typical know-nothing democrat.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495239
Dude, that $800 million was from a program that BUSH created. It landed on the books in 2009. Same thing with the housing collapse. Remember Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (oh yeah, those stinking Democrats in Congress). Interesting how you blame Democrats in Congress during Bush years, but it's all Obama's fault even though the Republicans have controlled the House the last two years. Again, where this "encouraging financial productivity" since 2002 when the Bush tax Credits went into effect?

Bank Bailouts

The Claim: Mitt Romney said the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 designated five U.S. banks as too big to fail and gave them “a blank check,” contributing to the collapse of smaller banks. “We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks,” he said, asserting it has contributed to the closing of 122 community banks.
The Background: The Dodd-Frank financial overhaul was enacted in July of 2010 to impose regulation on some of the riskiest practices that contributed to the financial meltdown. One provision created a protocol under which the largest, most complex financial institutions would be wound down safely, without lasting taxpayer burden, should they fail. Nine banks -- including five of the largest U.S. banks -- have submitted so- called “living wills” to U.S. banking regulators to map out how they would be dismantled under bankruptcy. If their bankruptcies threatened the financial system, Dodd-Frank gave the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. authority to liquidate them itself.
The Facts: Romney was off base. There is no connection between the failure of community banks and the provision in Dodd-Frank designed to contain the harm from the failure of a big bank. FDIC statistics show that 37 banks, not five, have enough assets to come under that provision
Ha Ha, You are both "confused" on this. It was TARP and was around 700 Billion which was all repaid and then some so it isn't on anyone's books now. It was paid out under Bushes 2009 budget and repaid under 0bama so in fact it hides some of the 0bama deficits.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
You must've been playing that drinking game I found when you heard that.  Here's a link to the entire transcript of last night's debate.  Show me where Romney said he would RAISE corporate tax rates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/transcript-of-the-first-presidential-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=all
As a matter of fact, this is what Obama stated about that issue:
When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. So I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.
This is what Romney said:
And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/romney-says-most-workers-at-small-businesses-will-see-a-tax-hit-heres-why-hes-wrong/
Did you read the entire transcript?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495262
Did you read the entire transcript?
I didin't have to. There's a simplistic little tool in Internet Explorer call "Find". Fill in the box with the text you want to search for (in this case the word "Corporate"), and it finds every instance of the word in the page you're looking at. If Romney was talking about CORPORATE Taxes, it would've found the word in the phrase or sentence he used it in. Now I guess you'll tell me he used a synonym for that word. Fine. Just let me know what you thought he said, and I 'll search for that...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
I didin't have to.  There's a simplistic little tool in Internet Explorer call "Find".  Fill in the box with the text you want to search for (in this case the word "Corporate"), and it finds every instance of the word in the page you're looking at.  If Romney was talking about CORPORATE Taxes, it would've found the word in the phrase or sentence he used it in.  Now I guess you'll tell me he used a synonym for that word.  Fine.  Just let me know what you thought he said, and I 'll search for that...
Damn, and I was hoping to say something outlandish, just to get you to read the entire debate yourself instead of listening to someone elses talking points and opinions on it. You know, that thing you accuse me of doing repeatedly but it is painfully obvious you are the one that does.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The government doesn't need to be involved in broadcasting anything in my view. And that statement has nothing to do with left or right wing politics. This is not a socialist country where media is controlled by the government.
Also, while the programming is not totally liberal as some like to say, the PBS is certainly not without bias either. That being so, it should not receive public funds.
I have worked in state contracting so I know the millions and millions of dollars that gets funneled in to profits and non-profits by the federal government--some of which provide none to little benefit to anyone. It is time to actually do what Obama promised to do in 08---go line by line on the budget and eliminate all the wasted millions going into projects and programs that have little purpose other than waste money.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495324
Damn, and I was hoping to say something outlandish, just to get you to read the entire debate yourself instead of listening to someone elses talking points and opinions on it. You know, that thing you accuse me of doing repeatedly but it is painfully obvious you are the one that does.
Again, why read or listen to it? You get all the major talking points these days after the fact. The debate was only 1 1/2 hours of the 2 hours slotted. The last half hour was commentary from all the media pundits. This is the first of three debates. Maybe I'll watch the next one. I guarantee you after Obama has been lambasted and railed for his poor performance in this one, he'll come out with guns blazing in the next.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Again, why read or listen to it?  You get all the major talking points these days after the fact.  The debate was only 1 1/2 hours of the 2 hours slotted.  The last half hour was commentary from all the media pundits.  This is the first of three debates.  Maybe I'll watch the next one.  I guarantee you after Obama has been lambasted and railed for his poor performance in this one, he'll come out with guns blazing in the next.
Aren't you the same guy lambasting people for getting their information from O'riely or Limbaugh instead of direct from the source? Hypocrite much?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393135/quiet-here-today/20#post_3495354
Aren't you the same guy lambasting people for getting their information from O'riely or Limbaugh instead of direct from the source? Hypocrite much?
What are you talking about? You're saying that transcript was "doctored" and didn't include your phantom claim about Romney raising corporate taxes?
 
Top