Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[SD]

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Obamacare-vs-Romneycare-Is-there-a-difference.html

[Munson]

Romney/Ryan want to suck the middle/lower class dry so they can funnel the money upward towards the mega rich/supposed job creators. God forbid the top 10% tax breaks, they already own 2/3 of the nations wealth but they need more. I mean, afterall, they earned every cent of their wealth all by themselves.

...and people have the nerve to question me when I say Obama has divided the country.

Obama has nothign to do with this post. Just look at anybody's break down of the Ryan/Romney budget plan. They're claiming to 1. Lower taxes on the "job creators" while 2. Simultaneously driving down the debt/deficit.

Do you know how they do that?
Pretty much every economist who's commented on it points out that the only way that is even close to possible is if they raise revenues from the lower and middle class.

This isn't "obama dividing the nation", this isn't "the liberal media", it's the numbers of the budget ideas they're proposing. Do you have any sort of rebuttal to that, that isn't empty right wing talking points?

[Diomedes]

Facts are liberal.

[Eagles_Legendz]

Romney/Ryan want to suck the middle/lower class dry so they can funnel the money upward towards the mega rich/supposed job creators. God forbid the top 10% tax breaks, they already own 2/3 of the nations wealth but they need more. I mean, afterall, they earned every cent of their wealth all by themselves.

...and people have the nerve to question me when I say Obama has divided the country.

Obama has nothign to do with this post. Just look at anybody's break down of the Ryan/Romney budget plan. They're claiming to 1. Lower taxes on the "job creators" while 2. Simultaneously driving down the debt/deficit.

Do you know how they do that?
Pretty much every economist who's commented on it points out that the only way that is even close to possible is if they raise revenues from the lower and middle class.

This isn't "obama dividing the nation", this isn't "the liberal media", it's the numbers of the budget ideas they're proposing. Do you have any sort of rebuttal to that, that isn't empty right wing talking points?

WINNER.

It is almost statistically impossible to significantly impact the deficit simply by reducing spending if you couple it with tax breaks, especially when you're unwilling to touch defense spending.  Cutting PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood are talking points to rile up the base, not anything which will actually impact the deficit.

[Diomedes]

OT, sorry:

As a devoted fan of PBS and NPR, I hope they lose all federal funding so they no longer have to pander to those who would call them biased for reporting the truth.

Here's the difference without having to do that:

with fed funding:  News story about teaching creationism as science in Tennessee:  Equal time given to science advocates and religious fundamentalists.

without fed funding:  News story about teaching creationism as science in Tennessee:  Science and education advocates interviewed, religious fundamentalists merely cited in passing.

The only reason they are given equal time now is because Republicans cry "unfair" every time one of their idiotic ideologies isn't given equal representation by the "federally funded liberal media."

Strip the last ten bucks out and move on. 

As I said before, the truth is liberal.

[shorebird]

Are you saying SD's post is factually inaccurate? 

Just curious.

WTF are you talking about?

I was asking if his statement that the richest 1% own the majority of wealth in this country is factually inaccurate.

Seriously, calm down.  You're acting like I'm personally attacking you and I'm not.  I'm simply trying to engage you in a civil conversation and you're acting like a total dickhead.

Didn't know I wasn't calm, I guess caps are too much for you? Didn't think you were attacking me, don't really care if you were. You seem to be taking the hippo section a little too personal. But anyway...as near as I can figure, I think I was talking about the link I posted off of SD's link, which seemed to be a very bi-partism article/opinion or whatever, about Reaganomics vs Clinton...nomics or whatever that was ignored like almost anything else here that seems to make sense.

[shorebird]

Oh for Gods sake, can we stop with the blame Bush crap? 2 TRILLION MORE IN HALF THE TIME!! Who are you going to blame during Obama's next term? Regan?

Was Obama responsible for the Wars and for the Bush Tax cuts? Again I ask, if Obamacare is a disaster and there's a Republican in office will that be blamed on Obama or the Republican who is currently in office? You can't have it both ways.

Remember the 15-month timetable President Obama promised Americans in 2008 for Iraq? How did that work out? It didn't.
Remember the promise from Obama that there would be no ground troops in Libya? Well, now there are nearly 30,000 troops in Libya.
Since Obama took office he has increased troops in Australia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, South Korea, Uganda and others.
Then his message to the troops, 'we are stronger, but the military cuts aren't my fault!' Whaaa fargin' whaaa.

But let's continue to talk about how it's Bush's fault for the wars.

As for Bush's tax cuts, if they did incrrease the debt, and I'm willing to concede they could have but don't know enough about economics to really say and economist are still debating it, is there anyone here who actually thinks that they raised the debt 6 MILLION IN 4 YEARS!! after the debt went up in Bush's 8 YEARS only 4 trillion?!? Economist I've read say that to extend the Bush tax cuts would raise the debt 2. something trillion in the next decade, so how the hell can you blame the 6 trillion Obama has done on Bush tax cuts?!? Your argument has absolutly no base at all.

I really don't know what to say about if Obamacare is a disaster who will it be blamed on? Thats beyond me right now.

[Munson]

Remember the 15-month timetable President Obama promised Americans in 2008 for Iraq? How did that work out? It didn't.
Remember the promise from Obama that there would be no ground troops in Libya? Well, now there are nearly 30,000 troops in Libya.
Since Obama took office he has increased troops in Australia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, South Korea, Uganda and others.
Then his message to the troops, 'we are stronger, but the military cuts aren't my fault!' Whaaa fargin' whaaa.

But let's continue to talk about how it's Bush's fault for the wars.

Obama ended up going with the original Bush timetable for withdrawal once he got into office and was advised by the military advisers to do so. I didn't agree with it, but are you saying that this is a weakness? That he should have stuck to his guns despite experts on the matter telling him to do otherwise?

As for your Libya troops claim...I have yet to find any credible source for any troops on the ground, and a few not so credible sources claiming 12,000 American troops, not 30,000.

But yes, considering George W Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he gets the blame for the cost of those two wars.

And, after saying all that....You aren't going to find many liberals who are happy with Obama's willingness to continue Bush/Republican military policies....but why would that cause people to vote for Romney over Obama? One of those two guys is going to be more likely to stop the war mongering, and it's not Romney.

As for Bush's tax cuts, if they did incrrease the debt, and I'm willing to concede they could have but don't know enough about economics to really say and economist are still debating it, is there anyone here who actually thinks that they raised the debt 6 MILLION IN 4 YEARS!! after the debt went up in Bush's 8 YEARS only 4 trillion?!? Economist I've read say that to extend the Bush tax cuts would raise the debt 2. something trillion in the next decade, so how the hell can you blame the 6 trillion Obama has done on Bush tax cuts?!? Your argument has absolutly no base at all.

The tax cuts have cost about 1.7 trillion over the last 11 years according to most estimates. between that and the two wars, you're looking at almost 3 and a half trillion, or roughly 20% of the total debt. I'd say that's a pretty sold chunk. The majority of our debt comes from programs that were pre-Obama, ie things like SS and Medicare. And then we had a large economic downturn that crushed revenue intake while at the same time increasing government spending through things like stimulus spending and unemployment insurance. Obama maybe could have chosen not to do those things, but that by all accounts would have been disastrous.

I really don't know what to say about if Obamacare is a disaster who will it be blamed on? Thats beyond me right now.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Unlike everything else you cited, Obamacare was actually enacted under Obama. It will hopefully be changed later on down the line to include a public option instead of the individual mandate.

[shorebird]

shore is the classic low to middle income middle american who votes republican because of social issues....you cant reason with people who vote against their own interests

You know nothing of me if you think I've voted for Bush/Republican (thats right, can't have voted repub without having voted for fargin' Bush) even for social issues. Thats a riot.

You, on the other hand, probably don't even see past the demo party line far enough except to see a person who isn't white or republican, old, christian, (or if you do you ignore it when the guys black), or isn't not an atheist. You are who you hate, just not white.

[shorebird]

Remember the 15-month timetable President Obama promised Americans in 2008 for Iraq? How did that work out? It didn't.
Remember the promise from Obama that there would be no ground troops in Libya? Well, now there are nearly 30,000 troops in Libya.
Since Obama took office he has increased troops in Australia, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, South Korea, Uganda and others.
Then his message to the troops, 'we are stronger, but the military cuts aren't my fault!' Whaaa fargin' whaaa.

But let's continue to talk about how it's Bush's fault for the wars.

Obama ended up going with the original Bush timetable for withdrawal once he got into office and was advised by the military advisers to do so. I didn't agree with it, but are you saying that this is a weakness? That he should have stuck to his guns despite experts on the matter telling him to do otherwise?

As for your Libya troops claim...I have yet to find any credible source for any troops on the ground, and a few not so credible sources claiming 12,000 American troops, not 30,000.

But yes, considering George W Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he gets the blame for the cost of those two wars.

And, after saying all that....You aren't going to find many liberals who are happy with Obama's willingness to continue Bush/Republican military policies....but why would that cause people to vote for Romney over Obama? One of those two guys is going to be more likely to stop the war mongering, and it's not Romney.

As for Bush's tax cuts, if they did increase the debt, and I'm willing to concede they could have but don't know enough about economics to really say and economist are still debating it, is there anyone here who actually thinks that they raised the debt 6 MILLION IN 4 YEARS!! after the debt went up in Bush's 8 YEARS only 4 trillion?!? Economist I've read say that to extend the Bush tax cuts would raise the debt 2. something trillion in the next decade, so how the hell can you blame the 6 trillion Obama has done on Bush tax cuts?!? Your argument has absolutly no base at all.

The tax cuts have cost about 1.7 trillion over the last 11 years according to most estimates. between that and the two wars, you're looking at almost 3 and a half trillion, or roughly 20% of the total debt. I'd say that's a pretty sold chunk. The majority of our debt comes from programs that were pre-Obama, ie things like SS and Medicare. And then we had a large economic downturn that crushed revenue intake while at the same time increasing government spending through things like stimulus spending and unemployment insurance. Obama maybe could have chosen not to do those things, but that by all accounts would have been disastrous.

I really don't know what to say about if Obamacare is a disaster who will it be blamed on? Thats beyond me right now.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Unlike everything else you cited, Obamacare was actually enacted under Obama. It will hopefully be changed later on down the line to include a public option instead of the individual mandate.

-Who said anything about votes, it was blame, you want to blame Bush for the wars, fine, but as big a blame is Obama sending troops over after promising to bring them home. When is doing anything like that NOT a weakness? I'll tell you when, when it fits Munson's agenda towards fighting for his chosen one Obama, thats when.

-Bla bla farging bla. He's added almost twice as much to the deficit as Bush has in half the time. But if he didn't it would have been a disaster? By whose accounts? All those lucky people who benefited off of the wasted stimulus? The man can do no wrong according to people like you, nothing.

[Munson]

-Who said anything about votes, it was blame, you want to blame Bush for the wars, fine, but as big a blame is Obama sending troops over after promising to bring them home. When is doing anything like that NOT a weakness? I'll tell you when, when it fits Munson's agenda towards fighting for his chosen one Obama, thats when.

-Bla bla farging bla. He's added almost twice as much to the deficit as Bush has in half the time. But if he didn't it would have been a disaster? By whose accounts? All those lucky people who benefited off of the wasted stimulus? The man can do no wrong according to people like you, nothing.

-I believe I already said I was not happy with Obama's decision to stick to Bush's timeline. But I assume somewhere between campaigning for president, and actually becoming the president, the military advisers probably are the ones that convinced him to stay in under the Bush timeline. Had he defied them, folks like you would have been screaming at him for not listening to the generals. It's pretty funny that you think defending him from fact-less dopes like you makes Obama my "chosen one".

-"bla bla farging bla"?? Really?? that is your response? "yeah yeah SS and medicare part D, tax cuts that he didn't enact BLAH BLAH BLAH Obama shoulda fixed that shtein!" Do yourself a favor and look back in time at past economic downturns....the economy goes down the shteinter, less people have jobs to pay taxes, tax revenue goes down, the deficit goes up. That's how it works. Is Obama supposed to defy the laws of economics? But yes, it would have been a disaster if people who had lost their jobs during the downturn didn't have any income to survive on, and yes it would have been a disaster had unemployment  reached the 12-13% figure that many had it projected to hit had there not been "wasted stimulus". Maybe in your eyes it was "wasted stimulus", but tell that to the 2-3 million people who stayed employed in part because of that stimulus. Or to some of the many people that benefited from the 260 Billion or so in tax cuts that were included in the stimulus. Yes shore, that's right, it was not 800 billion dollars worth of spending like I'm sure you've convinced yourself it was.

[shorebird]

It is almost statistically impossible to significantly impact the deficit simply by reducing spending if you couple it with tax breaks, especially when you're unwilling to touch defense spending.  Cutting PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood are talking points to rile up the base, not anything which will actually impact the deficit.

Unwilling to touch defense spending?!? HA! He's got no problem making spending cuts there to the tune of around 500 billion in the next ten years, after he said he wasn't going too!

[Munson]

It is almost statistically impossible to significantly impact the deficit simply by reducing spending if you couple it with tax breaks, especially when you're unwilling to touch defense spending.  Cutting PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood are talking points to rile up the base, not anything which will actually impact the deficit.

Unwilling to touch defense spending?!? HA! He's got no problem making spending cuts there to the tune of around 500 billion in the next ten years, after he said he wasn't going too!

He's talking about Republicans.

[shorebird]

-Who said anything about votes, it was blame, you want to blame Bush for the wars, fine, but as big a blame is Obama sending troops over after promising to bring them home. When is doing anything like that NOT a weakness? I'll tell you when, when it fits Munson's agenda towards fighting for his chosen one Obama, thats when.

-Bla bla farging bla. He's added almost twice as much to the deficit as Bush has in half the time. But if he didn't it would have been a disaster? By whose accounts? All those lucky people who benefited off of the wasted stimulus? The man can do no wrong according to people like you, nothing.

-I believe I already said I was not happy with Obama's decision to stick to Bush's timeline. But I assume somewhere between campaigning for president, and actually becoming the president, the military advisers probably are the ones that convinced him to stay in under the Bush timeline. Had he defied them, folks like you would have been screaming at him for not listening to the generals. It's pretty funny that you think defending him from fact-less dopes like you makes Obama my "chosen one".

NO, NO, NO. If you weren't so busy trying to put words in my mouth you'd know that I've been saying we should've had the troops back home long ago. But go on with your tunnel visioned veiw of everyone who doesn't think like you being a racist republican pig.

-"bla bla farging bla"?? Really?? that is your response? "yeah yeah SS and medicare part D, tax cuts that he didn't enact BLAH BLAH BLAH Obama shoulda fixed that shtein!" Do yourself a favor and look back in time at past economic downturns....the economy goes down the shteinter, less people have jobs to pay taxes, tax revenue goes down, the deficit goes up. That's how it works. Is Obama supposed to defy the laws of economics? But yes, it would have been a disaster if people who had lost their jobs during the downturn didn't have any income to survive on, and yes it would have been a disaster had unemployment  reached the 12-13% figure that many had it projected to hit had there not been "wasted stimulus". Maybe in your eyes it was "wasted stimulus", but tell that to the 2-3 million people who stayed employed in part because of that stimulus. Or to some of the many people that benefited from the 260 Billion or so in tax cuts that were included in the stimulus. Yes shore, that's right, it was not 800 billion dollars worth of spending like I'm sure you've convinced yourself it was.

HA! Well, hate to break this too you, but that 8.2% figure you stand behind so diligently? Try figuring the Real Labor Force Participation Rate into that and see what you get. Guess what, it's right around the 13% you say it'd have been without the stimulus. Not gonna' see that on MSNBC or anywere like that. Yeah, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower. Part timers, people who have given up looking for work, and so on. You think you have all the figures from what you've read on the internet, but the problem is were you're getting all your info.

[shorebird]

It is almost statistically impossible to significantly impact the deficit simply by reducing spending if you couple it with tax breaks, especially when you're unwilling to touch defense spending.  Cutting PBS, NPR, and Planned Parenthood are talking points to rile up the base, not anything which will actually impact the deficit.

Unwilling to touch defense spending?!? HA! He's got no problem making spending cuts there to the tune of around 500 billion in the next ten years, after he said he wasn't going too!

He's talking about Republicans.

Oh, well just another broken promise that he blames on congress, "It's not my fault, I don't do anything wrong, just ask Munron!"