31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 10:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    It's a wonder that anyone can be so disingenuous as not to notice these are starting points and ignore the fact that Paul Ryan goes far further to address entitlement spending. Given how adroitly partisan you've been, it's not surprising that you haven't been willing to read some of the specific proposals out there, but being as charitable as I am I will refrain from questioning your literacy.

    Further, given that research from Christine Romer, the outgoing chair of the CEA pointed out that tax increases had a negative impact of the actual dollar amounts raised during the Depression, given that markets are forecasting a double dip recession, it would strike me as even more unwise to raise taxes if the objective is to also retain jobs. That's just me though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    Tim -

    They're not interested in the ending the deficit, certainly the Republicans aren't. It's like abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, how do the Republicans raise money? They've never once in my lifetime actually tried to help anyone or improve their lives of the citizenry. All they do is fear monger.

    What they ARE interested in is using the deficit as an excuse to eliminate programs that help the poor or regulate industry. They reveal their hand by which departments they would eliminate: Education and Energy.

    Why not Agriculture? (Because then Monsanto won't get it's subsidies to make our children obese.)

    Why not commerce? (Because then they can't get some CEO in their to give favorable "regulations" to businesses.)

    Why not Homeland Security? (Because then they can't give no-bid contracts to the companies that bought them off!)

    So transparent...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 10:55 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    Tim -

    They're not interested in the ending the deficit, certainly the Republicans aren't. It's like abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, how do the Republicans raise money? They've never once in my lifetime actually tried to help anyone or improve their lives of the citizenry. All they do is fear monger.

    What they ARE interested in is using the deficit as an excuse to eliminate programs that help the poor or regulate industry. They reveal their hand by which departments they would eliminate: Education and Energy.

    Why not Agriculture? (Because then Monsanto won't get it's subsidies to make our children obese.)

    Why not commerce? (Because then they can't get some CEO in their to give favorable "regulations" to businesses.)

    Why not Homeland Security? (Because then they can't give no-bid contracts to the companies that bought them off!)

    So transparent...


    Both the Heritage and Ryan proposals specifically seek to limit spending in Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security. It only lacks transparency insofar as you're not willing or are unable to read what's widely being disseminated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 11:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    It's a wonder that anyone can be so disingenuous as not to notice these are starting points and ignore the fact that Paul Ryan goes far further to address entitlement spending. Given how adroitly partisan you've been, it's not surprising that you haven't been willing to read some of the specific proposals out there, but being as charitable as I am I will refrain from questioning your literacy.

    Further, given that research from Christine Romer, the outgoing chair of the CEA pointed out that tax increases had a negative impact of the actual dollar amounts raised during the Depression, given that markets are forecasting a double dip recession, it would strike me as even more unwise to raise taxes if the objective is to also retain jobs. That's just me though.



    I just read the whole Paul Ryan article. Not only does it not redress Social Security and Medicare reform, he says upfront that they will accomplish nothing in the next two years.

    And the Heritage Foundation, unsurprisingly only eliminates programs designed to help the poor and disenfranchised and arts and science programs. So they cannot be taken seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 11:11 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    Tim -

    They're not interested in the ending the deficit, certainly the Republicans aren't. It's like abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, how do the Republicans raise money? They've never once in my lifetime actually tried to help anyone or improve their lives of the citizenry. All they do is fear monger.

    What they ARE interested in is using the deficit as an excuse to eliminate programs that help the poor or regulate industry. They reveal their hand by which departments they would eliminate: Education and Energy.

    Why not Agriculture? (Because then Monsanto won't get it's subsidies to make our children obese.)

    Why not commerce? (Because then they can't get some CEO in their to give favorable "regulations" to businesses.)

    Why not Homeland Security? (Because then they can't give no-bid contracts to the companies that bought them off!)

    So transparent...


    Both the Heritage and Ryan proposals specifically seek to limit spending in Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security. It only lacks transparency insofar as you're not willing or are unable to read what's widely being disseminated.


    I wasn't speaking about the Heritage Foundation proposal in my previous post, but to the "invisible" RJ member who suggested eliminated Energy and Education.

    Again, as Tim said, not nearly enough to address the actual deficit.

    And, I did read both Ryan's article and the Heritage proposal and my statement stands. Are there minor cuts to those programs I mentioned, sure. But they're all very minor and very focused on eliminating aid to the poor and disenfranchised while removing regulations on corporate power. It's not a deficit proposal, it's a(nother) attack on the poor by a bunch of rich assholes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2010 11:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidIt's a wonder that anyone can be so disingenuous as not to notice these are starting points and ignore the fact that Paul Ryan goes far further to address entitlement spending. Given how adroitly partisan you've been, it's not surprising that you haven't been willing to read some of the specific proposals out there, but being as charitable as I am I will refrain from questioning your literacy.

    Further, given that research from Christine Romer, the outgoing chair of the CEA pointed out that tax increases had a negative impact of the actual dollar amounts raised during the Depression, given that markets are forecasting a double dip recession, it would strike me as even more unwise to raise taxes if the objective is to also retain jobs. That's just me though.


    I can see some elements in the proposals you mentioned that I'd be happy to agree with. But they simply do not go far enough, even if the tax cuts are perpetually extended.

    I think it is disingenuous to claim that the tax cuts can be extended and severe cuts do not have to be made.

    As I have said elsewhere, I am perfectly in favor of a *short* extension to the Bush tax cuts to ride out the recession. 1-2 years. No more.

    I don't think this is partisan --- in fact I think insisting on fully costed, realistic proposals makes me a heretic from both parties!

    As for the ad hominem attacks, they only serve to exemplify the woeful standard to political discussion on here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2010 12:42 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    riddler78 said
    There exist two sources for specific proposals that I'm aware of - and Paul Ryan has not at all been shy at giving specific examples of what he will cut:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/fortune-paul-ryans-big-plans-for-a-small-budget/

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget


    Pathetic. $343billion?!??! When the Federal Deficit is $1.17 trillion in 2010 and according to the CBO will be ~$533 billion in 2013?

    Continuing the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost between $200 and $500billion per year---depending on who we extend them for.

    Do you see what I'm talking about? The plan you've proposed SIMPLY DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE OF CLOSING THE DEFICIT.

    Eliminating the Department of Energy saves $23billion per year---a drop in the ocean.
    Eliminating the Department of Education saves $46.7billion per year---NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

    It's a wonder anyone here graduated high school with arithmetic skills this bad!


    And it also goes to show you that people dont learn financial disipline in our schools. Both cabinets are a WASTE OF MONEY.

    Theres only two things we need from the Federal Govvernment.

    1. A Military to protect us
    2. Money for Infrastructure

    Thats It. Lets cut taxes across the board and start cutting the hell out of the federal government.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2010 1:33 PM GMT
    CHRIS6464 said
    And it also goes to show you that people dont learn financial disipline in our schools. Both cabinets are a WASTE OF MONEY.

    Theres only two things we need from the Federal Govvernment.

    1. A Military to protect us
    2. Money for Infrastructure

    Thats It. Lets cut taxes across the board and start cutting the hell out of the federal government.


    In La-La land that might be possible. But we have to contend with reality. Dismantling the Federal Government in its entirety is not a realistic option.