PDA

View Full Version : Those Pesky Ol' Debates



Cedric
10-13-2012, 06:48 AM
Those pesky o'l presidential level debates never really matter . . . unless one candidate is clearly much better than the other. It's now official [well no it's not, but that sounds good] that Obama gave the worst debate performance in the brief history of sitting presidents facing off against an opponent before camera lenses. I suspect that when historians finish quibbling over the definition of 'bad' however a few years down the line that Obama's rendition of an empty chair sitting forlorn and clueless before a thoroughly prepared and competent Romney smoothly hitting all the debate numbers will indeed win for Obama that singular historic honor.

Think about that for a moment; a president who was given a Nobel Peace Prize merely for winning an election and a president touted as a Great Communicator merely for showing up for an election may have lost an election because he wasn't a Great Anything at all when all was said and done . . . and when during that first debate Barack Obama displayed himself before the nation and the world as that famous emperor of children's fables sans political clothing. Now that I call that getting avalanched by a mountain top full of cold-arsed karma.

Then there was this week's debate between the pair of running mates known as the Gaffe-Master and Kid Wonk. You want to know how badly Obama really did the previous week? Gaffe-Master Joe Biden merely by producing an effective draw with Kid Wonk actually succeeded in giving countless Obama supporters -- up to that time anxiously holding their breaths in awful anticipation -- collective Bidengasms as they jubilantly inflated the Biden/Ryan debate draw into a massive and over-the-top resounding win for their vice president . . . and temporarily forgot in the process that vice presidential debates don't actually matter unless one of the participants utterly blows it in front of the camera and that Paul Ryan definitely did not blow it and that in fact they had not been watching Barack Obama perform against Paul Ryan.

I base the above on direct observations of hysterical Obama supporters clogging a certain liberal e-zine's commentary sections with insanely orgasmic praises of all things Gaffe-Master in general after Thursday night's passion play in which -- yep -- CNN and AP ended up crediting the overall win to Ryan after all.

So these presidential level debates definitely do matter when one or the other of the candidates [or a running mate] utterly blows the darn thing before the nation and the world; but realistically, nobody in-the-know expects either Romney or Obama to blow the remaining two debates. One of the candidates may get the better of the other on their presentations of on camera personality or with their handling of pre-scripted zingers, but unless something like the Libyan issue becomes an unexpected and decisive wedge issue then effectively the remaining two presidential debates . . . really won't matter all that much.

Weird huh?

Peter1469
10-13-2012, 07:00 AM
Questions for the next debate:

Mr. President, your party characterizes Mr. Ryan's budget as radical, and anti government. Yet it is projected to add around $5T to the debt over 10 years. How many more trillions would you propose to add to the debt over the next 10 years?

For Mr. Ryan, you claim that your proposed budget cuts taxes. If that were true, it would not add around $5T to the debt over 10 years. It would subtract from the debt..., can you help me with that math?

Cedric
10-13-2012, 07:05 AM
Questions for the next debate:

Mr. President, your party characterizes Mr. Ryan's budget as radical, and anti government. Yet it is projected to add around $5T to the debt over 10 years. How many more trillions would you propose to add to the debt over the next 10 years?

For Mr. Ryan, you claim that your proposed budget cuts taxes. If that were true, it would not add around $5T to the debt over 10 years. It would subtract from the debt..., can you help me with that math?

I think that when it comes to economic reality most politicians flunk out. Can you imagine what some of them must have been like with high school mathematics? "No Barack, the final answer is not supposed to be what you want it to be. 2 + 2 does not actually turn into 16 trillion. Now try again."

Mainecoons
10-13-2012, 07:08 AM
No matter how you slice it, the budget cannot be brought back into balance without serious reduction in government and foreign military misadventurism, coupled with tax increases and entitlement cuts. The math just doesn't work any other way. The U.S. benefitted for many years from the combination of winning WWII and having a lot of people owing it money and buying stuff from it, plus the productive energy of the Baby Boom generation. Now all three are gone and will not return.

What can return are two very big things: Making the U.S. energy independent and making it the best place on the planet to do business and make stuff. Both are readily within our grasp, particularly as Europe and China start to crater.

Peter1469
10-13-2012, 07:12 AM
Agreed, except undecided on the tax increases. That can mean anything. I would not increase the tax rate for the rich. I would end many of their deductions. I would increase the tax rates of the lower 47% that pay zero% federal income taxes. Even it that rate would be 1%-5%, they must have skin in the game if our republic is to survive.

Cedric
10-13-2012, 07:15 AM
Look I blame G.W. Bush and Obama and both houses of Congress and the leadership of both parties for our current financial mess. As Margaret Thatcher once told her people, "The medicine is going to be very bitter."

As of yet none of our politicians on either side are willing to admit to the nation just how bitter it's going to have to be . . . although possibly Ryan has been coming nearest to telling the truth.

Mainecoons
10-13-2012, 07:15 AM
The tax system alone is a drag on the competitiveness of the country and needs to be scrapped and redone. And yes, everyone should have skin in the game.

I could cut $500 billion out of the Federal budget, half the deficit, without even breaking a sweat, and that is before entitlement reform. We shouldn't need to raise more than a couple hundred billion per year from tax increases.

Cedric
10-13-2012, 07:20 AM
Agreed, except undecided on the tax increases. That can mean anything. I would not increase the tax rate for the rich. I would end many of their deductions. I would increase the tax rates of the lower 47% that pay zero% federal income taxes. Even it that rate would be 1%-5%, they must have skin in the game if our republic is to survive.

We both agree about the necessity of having skin in the game. I am a firm believer that even the people on fixed incomes or people receiving a complete income tax refund from the government should have to pay something into the system . . . even if it's merely a token fifty dollars per year. Oh and yes, end many of the deductions for the upper scale people. Just don't hit them so heavy that they begin shutting down.

England went that route during the fifties and sixties and it took Margarette Thatcher to get them to understand that if you put too deep a bite on the wealthy then they pack up and leave and then one's overall financial situation continues to deteriorate.

Trinnity
10-13-2012, 07:40 AM
We both agree about the necessity of having skin in the game. I am a firm believer that even the people on fixed incomes or people receiving a complete income tax refund from the government should have to pay something into the system . . . even if it's merely a token fifty dollars per year. Oh and yes, end many of the deductions for the upper scale people. Just don't hit them so heavy that they begin shutting down.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but everyone pays sales tax, and most people have property tax on a car, if not a home or land. A minimum fifty dollar income tax for anyone who had income, doesn't seem unreasonable.

Cedric
10-14-2012, 06:33 AM
Just playing devil's advocate here, but everyone pays sales tax, and most people have property tax on a car, if not a home or land. A minimum fifty dollar income tax for anyone who had income, doesn't seem unreasonable.

Yep, it's a psychological aspect more than a meaningful revenue flow; because local and state taxes remain either local and state and do not flow into federal coffers. A token payment into federal coffers, however, would mean something on a psychological basis if nothing else . . . even if the federal government had to give the people the money first. Heh.