^^,^^^

Just blow each other already

10/4/2012 7:27:22 AM

^^Lol, okay fine.

Keep waving that as your banner, and ill keep waving mine.

Anybody who remembers the energy from the 2008 campaign saw Obama last night as an empty shell of himself. That isn't something you easily recover.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 7:30 AM. Reason : -]

10/4/2012 7:30:11 AM

Don't be a drama queen. Romney pretty clearly won last night but Obama is still the odds on favorite to win reelection.

He can't get his doors blown off in the next two debates like he did last night but the topics of the next two favor BO..

10/4/2012 8:15:53 AM

Oh I agree with that post. We'll just have to wait and see!

In the meantime, this is non-partisan and fairly entertaining:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2012/10/01/121001sh_shouts_barol

10/4/2012 8:21:12 AM

10/4/2012 8:22:40 AM

Mitt Romney hates big bird.

I do not support any cuts at home if we are still giving foreign aid. When I get broke the first thing to go is charity.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2012 8:55:12 AM

Quote :

"When I get broke the first thing to go is charity."

amen...i give out of my surplus only

10/4/2012 9:14:23 AM

Quote :

"Mitt Romney says he might be willing to reduce income tax deductions used by millions of families for home mortgage interest and health care costs."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/mitt-romney-suggests-cutting-mortgage-interest-deduction-on-eve-of-presidential-debate-1.4066809

10/4/2012 9:19:15 AM

Off loading programs to the states just hides the cost from the federal budget. States have to balance their budgets, the federal government should be required to do that.

10/4/2012 9:29:57 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

10/4/2012 9:33:12 AM

states also aren't capable of stimulus in any meaningful sense. The federal government ultimately has control over the printing presses.

This is why the stimulus didn't exist. The federal government stimulated, states cut. Government, taken as a whole, was both hiring and firing people. It was a net drag on the economy. I don't agree with a lot of the modern application of Keynesian, but this claim is just dumbly, obviously, right - if you cut government with the onset of a recession you will plunge the economy into much more dramatic and devastating economic cycles.

But they won't talk about that in the debates, because it has substance.

10/4/2012 9:34:10 AM

It's easier for states and local governments to balance budgets.

Also easier for them to customize policy to account for the unique makeup of their citizenry or play to state strengths/weaknesses.

I thought this was pretty common knowledge, but I have no idea of knowing how many folks here have ever worked for a government agency (or been elected, for that matter).

*shrug*

10/4/2012 9:42:11 AM

Quote :

"It's easier for states and local governments to balance budgets. Also easier for them to customize policy to account for the unique makeup of their citizenry or play to state strengths/weaknesses. I thought this was pretty common knowledge, but I have no idea of knowing how many folks here have ever worked for a government agency (or been elected, for that matter). *shrug*"

Sure more republican bullshit.

10/4/2012 10:05:19 AM

Just like worshiping the federal government is typical liberal horseshit?

10/4/2012 10:10:42 AM

Quote :

"Also easier for them to customize policy to account for the unique makeup of their citizenry or play to state strengths/weaknesses."

I have no idea what you mean by this statement. But I'm not suggesting that I don't understand, quite the contrary. It's intentionally vague, because you, and your entire ideological front have nothing to back this up. Since when, in what way, were local governments good at governing?

But you know, I could let this slide. There's no empirical side to it, so we're kind of done. The conversation has no place to go. On the other hand, this...

Quote :

"It's easier for states and local governments to balance budgets."

State and local debt is about 1/3rd that of federal government. At least recently, which is mostly a consequence of the stimulus, which, again, was the federal making up for state and local cuts. The federal is still larger than state and local combined, for 2013 projected numbers we're talking about $3.8 trillion for federal and $3.2 trillion for state and local.

Mark my words, more local government is a plague on all our houses. The amount of debt all our levels of government has been able to accumulate is a direct function of their ability to borrow, and this ability is greatest at the federal level. The "responsibility" or lack thereof with taking on debt is beholden to the debt servicing costs and overall solvency, and on this metric local and state governments fail miserably.

Not to mention, local governments are boondogglelicious, in many cases just directly throwing future taxpayer money into private hands through construction of sports arenas and other things that feel okay on the justification that people like them and it's a popular thing to do.

Conservatives have completely abandoned their principles and this is abundantly clear when we come to their deferment to more local forms of government, which are more corrupt, more broken, and much less solvent. Small government is small government, it should have never been an exclusively federal position, and this reeks of the same cherry picking that conservative leaders lather in when they speak of federal income tax as if that were the only tax we were subject to.

10/4/2012 10:36:42 AM

^ What he said

10/4/2012 10:41:13 AM

So you're arguing in favor of a big unmanageable thing instead of a small unmanageable thing.

As if one isn't easier to reign in than the other.

Got it.

10/4/2012 10:42:42 AM

^

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2012 10:46:15 AM

10/4/2012 10:46:57 AM

^^as long as I'm safe.

10/4/2012 10:47:56 AM

It is not easier to reign in local and state governments. In many ways, what they do is even more irrevocable, and it's more invisible to the average citizen. Just moving to a more solvent area while your old one goes bankrupt isn't very much of an option when the debt they took on was a result of governing culture and group think, causing those governments most all places to load up on debt.

If they're both unmanageable, size isn't a solution.

10/4/2012 10:55:55 AM

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/260209-obama-camp-promises-tougher-response-to-romney-in-next-debate

On the other hand there is this, David Axelrod, who I'm assuming in this video is saying exactly everything that Obama supporters in this thread believe.

That's fine of course, but note even Axelrod's speech/mannerisms/body language in this segment. Axelrod is rarely that animated and to me it's very obvious that he is agitated and surprised by last night.

Plus I don't see a whole lot here that suggests:
"Obama camp promises tougher response to Romney in next debate"

I heard that they realize people EXPECTED them to be tougher but..?. I'm just missing it I assume.

10/4/2012 10:59:53 AM

10/4/2012 12:30:30 PM

10/4/2012 1:42:57 PM

its bad when the puppet master has to speak

10/4/2012 1:47:41 PM

10/4/2012 8:11:21 PM

President Barack Obama's supporters, incredulous at their candidate's defeat in last night's debate, and worried about the September jobs report, are reaching for phony economic arguments across the networks and social media today. Some are familiar arguments from Obama's own talking points in 2008 and again in 2012, and it would seem Obama himself actually believes them. There is only one problem: they are completely false.
John Merline of Investors Business Daily tackles the top five--and, with a bit of paraphrasing, here they are:
5. The Bush tax cuts caused the recession/deficit. This is what Obama means when he warns voters about the "policies of the past." But the recession was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis, in which Democrat policies going back to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were major factors. In fact, after 2005, during the height of the Bush expansion (2002-6), tax revenues were up from their pre-tax levels. And after 2003, deficits declined until the recession--and the return of Democrats, and their high-spending ways, to positions of power.
4. Obama stopped a second Great Depression. The worst was over when Obama took office, and the rebound was under way--until Obama stopped it with the heavy hand of Obamacare and other interventions. The stimulus failed, the auto bailout was a wash, "green" jobs sputtered, and Obama's enormous debts created new economic threats. Those sectors of the economy that are performing best--such as the booming shale natural gas and domestic oil industries are those in which Obama has been unable to intrude very far. (Yet.)
3. A slow recovery was inevitable. Well, yes, if you consider that we elected a left-wing Democrat who wanted to "spread the wealth around" rather than focusing on jobs and economic growth. But the jury is still out on whether financial collapses are followed by slow recoveries. And one thing is clear: the Obama administration predicted rapid economic growth, including an unemployment rate that would not rise above 8% with Obama's policies. The Obama campaign only adopted its new line once its record of failure had become clear.
2. Obama's policies are working. The only one President Obama dares mention is the auto bailout--which is working so well that General Motors is laying off thousands of workers and the government refuses to sell its shares lest it absorb a massive loss. Meanwhile, the non-union workers who were cheated out of their pensions while Obama gave the unions a big piece of the pie before sending the company to bankruptcy court may beg to differ. Household incomes have dropped, joblessness is alarming, dependence on government is increasing.
1. Nobody could have done better. This is the line that Clinton--who certainly did better--is being wheeled out to promote, though he knows the truth. No recovery from a deep recession has even been this weak, or this slow. In fact, nearly everyone has done better than Obama since the Second World War. With all the positive spin on bad economic data he could possibly have hoped for, with a (now disbanded) dream team of economic advisers, Obama still could not make the right choices. The truth is that no one could have done worse.

10/5/2012 7:28:18 AM

Wow!

You can copy and paste random conservative fairytales from random conservative blogs!

You must be really smart!

10/5/2012 7:32:43 AM

Conservative Fairytales

I guess Obama has never told a lie. right

10/5/2012 8:08:26 AM

Quote :

"Unemployment falls to 7.8%, lowest since Jan. 2009"

OBAMA JUST WON BITCHES.

10/5/2012 8:35:18 AM

Quote :

"President Barack Obama's supporters, incredulous at their candidate's defeat in last night's debate, and worried about the September jobs report, are reaching for phony economic arguments across the networks and social media today. Some are familiar arguments from Obama's own talking points in 2008 and again in 2012, and it would seem Obama himself actually believes them. There is only one problem: they are completely false. John Merline of Investors Business Daily tackles the top five--and, with a bit of paraphrasing, here they are: 5. The Bush tax cuts caused the recession/deficit. This is what Obama means when he warns voters about the "policies of the past." But the recession was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis, in which Democrat policies going back to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were major factors. In fact, after 2005, during the height of the Bush expansion (2002-6), tax revenues were up from their pre-tax levels. And after 2003, deficits declined until the recession--and the return of Democrats, and their high-spending ways, to positions of power. 4. Obama stopped a second Great Depression. The worst was over when Obama took office, and the rebound was under way--until Obama stopped it with the heavy hand of Obamacare and other interventions. The stimulus failed, the auto bailout was a wash, "green" jobs sputtered, and Obama's enormous debts created new economic threats. Those sectors of the economy that are performing best--such as the booming shale natural gas and domestic oil industries are those in which Obama has been unable to intrude very far. (Yet.) 3. A slow recovery was inevitable. Well, yes, if you consider that we elected a left-wing Democrat who wanted to "spread the wealth around" rather than focusing on jobs and economic growth. But the jury is still out on whether financial collapses are followed by slow recoveries. And one thing is clear: the Obama administration predicted rapid economic growth, including an unemployment rate that would not rise above 8% with Obama's policies. The Obama campaign only adopted its new line once its record of failure had become clear. 2. Obama's policies are working. The only one President Obama dares mention is the auto bailout--which is working so well that General Motors is laying off thousands of workers and the government refuses to sell its shares lest it absorb a massive loss. Meanwhile, the non-union workers who were cheated out of their pensions while Obama gave the unions a big piece of the pie before sending the company to bankruptcy court may beg to differ. Household incomes have dropped, joblessness is alarming, dependence on government is increasing. 1. Nobody could have done better. This is the line that Clinton--who certainly did better--is being wheeled out to promote, though he knows the truth. No recovery from a deep recession has even been this weak, or this slow. In fact, nearly everyone has done better than Obama since the Second World War. With all the positive spin on bad economic data he could possibly have hoped for, with a (now disbanded) dream team of economic advisers, Obama still could not make the right choices. The truth is that no one could have done worse."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/04/Top-5-False-Economic-Ideas-Believed-by-Obama-and-His-Supporters

Didn't they teach you to cite your sources in school?

10/5/2012 8:36:40 AM

I don't even get why the federal government funds pbs/npr. there are plenty of media outlets without needing state media.

10/5/2012 9:07:35 AM

Have you seen Honey Boo Boo on the fucking learning channel?

That's why

10/5/2012 9:21:22 AM

I don't get why the federal government funds our huge military. When's the last time we got invaded?

10/5/2012 9:22:58 AM

^^so having NPR/PBS prevents dumb whitetrash?
^exactly.

10/5/2012 9:34:23 AM

^ No, it makes sure we have an alternative. I'm pretty sure you understood that from my post, right? Or did you really think I meant that PBS was going to wipe out all stupid television? Are you really that stupid?

10/5/2012 9:39:39 AM

Who watches PBS?

10/5/2012 9:42:46 AM

Austin City Limits is quality TV.

10/5/2012 9:44:12 AM

^^ these people

10/5/2012 9:45:48 AM

I love me some NOVA.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

10/5/2012 9:51:50 AM

Quote :

"No, it makes sure we have an alternative. "

There are lots of alternatives.

10/5/2012 9:56:01 AM

Funding a tv/radio station is just as dumb as bailouts. I support Romney on ending pbs/npr.

With that said

Quote :

"Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it"

Romney's healthcare. Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)
Pay for Politicians Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)
Foreign Aid Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)
Embassies Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)
Playing Police with our Army Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)
Tax breaks for everyone Cancel it (Not worth borrowing money for)

10/5/2012 10:03:46 AM

^

I realize that PBS might only be 0.0012% of the federal budget. But 1) it's the principle of government spending and 2) Every penny counts and when you add up all of this small bullshit, it turns out to be quite a large sum.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 10:04:26 AM

DOUBLE POAST RAPE

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2012 10:06:23 AM

Fighting Gay Marriage Cancel it(Cost more money to say no then yes)

Obama put us 16 trillion in debt. We must cancel all the handouts he has put in place in the last 40 years of his presidency.

10/5/2012 10:07:38 AM

wat

10/5/2012 10:09:57 AM

See what I did there?

10/5/2012 10:12:59 AM

Quote :

"Who watches PBS?"

we do. kid shows and adult programming. some great concerts on PBS.

10/5/2012 10:13:45 AM

Quote :

"Didn't they teach you to cite your sources in school?"

Yep. I aint in school now am I? Besides, I knew one of you smart asses would look it up.

7.8%. That bullshit figure produced by a bullshit administration and its too little too late.

10/5/2012 10:14:32 AM

^ ridiculous. If they were going to fudge numbers why not do it the morning after the Dem Convention?

Anyone angry about good economic news is a complete fucking ass.

10/5/2012 10:16:22 AM