Both a funny and pathetic take .. I'm 50/50.
The Debates
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
Both a funny and pathetic take .. I'm 50/50.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Yeah...
It's becoming more and more apparent to me that the GOP thinks that PBS, Green Energy investment, and students are bankrupting this country.
Is this more about control than anything? Seriously, are they afraid that Big Bird is teaching youngins to love anti-GOP things?
So why wasn't Romney laughed off the stage when he did the Big Bird take? Was he actually being serious about taking out PBS to save money?
Again, just a reminder... I'm being serious.
I don't get why his comment wasn't followed with a pie to the face. If we're really looking to cut into this trillion dollar debt we have, why are we wasting time talking about such a tiny and insignificant part?
I propose that no one thing has any significant impact, but an overhaul of many smaller things makes a substantial enough impact worth exploring.
I reject that proposal in its entirety, particularly as it's dishonest with respect to scope. There are several items driving deficits that have hundreds of times the impact of CPB funding. The implication being that you'd have to eliminate literally hundreds of CPB level programs to equal reforms in other programs. CBP level alterations are the finishing touches, not the foundations of reform.
Romney/Ryan are engaging in the favorite chickenhawk debt game that all politicians (regardless of party) engage in when they want to appear serious about the debt. They don't want to be soft on defense, so they say defense spending is off-limits. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are popular, so they largely try to claim those are off-limits too (you could witness this last night, when Romney was trying to go out of the way to say he was putting money back into medicare and that SS funding changes wouldn't effect anyone 55-65 years of age). So they focus on the tiniest sliver of what's left, in the category of non-defense discretionary spending. The reality is you could eliminate that entire category, literally every single program, and it wouldn't make up the difference. So we get this focus on the piddliest stupidest things imaginable, like CPB funding, as an attempt to pose to everyone else that you're the one taking the budget seriously. That's not being a fiscal conservative, that's fiscal conservatism theater.
To use a Bill Mahrer sourced graphic:
CPB and the smaller ilk are the garnish on the side of the plate.
To be honest, I'm amused that apparently the Big Bird thing was the most tweeted about debate topic and the single item getting the most play today, I certainly didn't see that coming. In retrospect it seems like a weird thing to come out against. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to act like a) the Fed Gov directly funds Big Bird (who, incidentally, is probably one of only a handful net positive CBP investments) and b) that Big Bird is a federal deficit driver.
So true my friend, but I have quite a few friends who think everyone besides Fox, and the Post are liberal, and they are doing everything in their power
to make sure the liberals win. You know the types Stoked! I read their posts on Facebook, they are always whining. For example they think Yahoo
is completely Liberal, and out to get them. Do you see where I coming from?
The sites you mentioned are slanted, no doubt. I just can't stand when some poor conversatives act like the entire world is out to get them.
It's all equaled out when you consider that radio stations pumping out non-stop aggressive conservative agenda are almost everywhere.
Dare I say it's because they think it's Liberal? Or in the least not pro-republican...? I mean look at Bob Ross! Taty guy is a screaming Liberal....
I do know those types. We have a few of them right here on Jazzfanz. As for yahoo I do not read their stuff enough, I am reading more of it, to get a feel for them.
The conservative whinning like the entire world is out to get them is one of the forms of lunacy that was mentioned in one of these threads over the last few days. I do believe that the currect crop of liberals and the current crop of conservatives are incapable of compromising wiht each other.
mtnbayou
Member
Agreed. Give the Conservatives the South (minus New Orleans and Florida), most of the Midwest, and a couple intermountain states. And Alaska could be its own country.
Funny, most of the red states are the states that have the least educated, most racist people.
Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are all intermountain states and they are all red. Colorado and Nevada are intermountain states and they are a toos up. Only New Mexico is routinely left leaning.
If you were truly dividing up the US by political leanings the right would have Idaho/Utah/Arizona to Georgia and the Caolinas. Texas up to the Dakotas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana.
The left would have the West coast and Nevada (since the right took Colorado), New Mexico, The entire New England area and the Great Lake states (Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin...)
Only states that are up for grabs are Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Iowa.
How about Florida and Iowa for the right and Ohio and Virginia for the left. Done.
Saw this through RCP yesterday. Here's the link since you didn't provide it: https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytim...l-challenge-and-more-on-debate-instant-polls/