Wrong. The democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for a few months and only if you include independents (Guess what? They're not democrats). Then, Senator Kennedy died and republicans had the ability to filibuster (and they did, often).
Bush took us from a surplus to two recessions, including the worst financial disaster since the great depression and a trillion dollar deficit. Obama's deficits have merely hovered around what he inherited, he did not push them further, and he turned the economy around from losing millions of jobs to creating them again. You're full of shit.
I also wanted to mention, the study mentioned here: "The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."
That was done by a CONSERVATIVE think tank. Not an arm of the Democratic Party. Far from it.
Only in your Republican-biased world view is the Tax Policy Center an arm of the Democratic Party. The analysis was done by members of BOTH parties. Take a look: "Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. [...] The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering 'objective, third-party analysis.'"
So, to summarize: an author from one of the country's most prestigious schools, an author that served under a Republican president, a director that served under a Republican president, AND a glowing recommendation from the Romney campaign itself.
You should read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/
"Rosen’s main point is that any assessment of the Romney tax plan that ignores its impact on economic growth is incomplete.[...]
Some news organizations noted the Tax Policy Center did factor in higher growth in its original study. It used a model developed by a Romney adviser, Gregory Mankiw, and found that while growth softened the burden on people making less money, the shift is still there.
"Our results are not qualitatively different, even if we include additional taxes generated from the growth effects," the authors wrote.
The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."
Here's the American Enterprise Institute link: http://www.aei.org/files/2011/09/27/TPO-Sept-2011.pdf
How are you supposed to have "meat" to argue anything when someone has no meat to their plans? Any plans he has, he hasn't explained how to achieve them. Any views he had, have probably changed. I visit fact checking websites on a regular basis and they have trouble checking any claims made against Romney on account of "we don't know what he'll do."
What regulations are you going to cut? "The bad ones?" What tax loop holes are you going to close? "The ones that make it revenue neutral?" What federal programs will you cut? How will you fix social entitlements?
I watched Romney's debating, he just told everyone that they could have their cake and eat it too. That and trust him, when he gets into office it will be totally awesome.
"The debate raging in India parallels a similar one that has simmered in the United States for decades."
If by that you mean the debate that rich people believe that the government shouldn't be using their money for space; so they can keep it and spend it on hookers and blow... then I guess that's a parallel.
I too, felt them to be generic. Most followed this outline (but obviously much more verbose):
Question: What will you do about X? Romney: X is good. I like X. When Obama tried to do something about X, he was trying to destroy America. I will not destroy America. I will do good things.
"I had an employer write to me the other day saying they had a skills gap, and they really did. It wasn't wages, because they did market wage surveys, and they were paying what everybody else was paying, and all the employers, by the way, are having a skills gap, so it's a big problem. Well, if everybody's got the same problem, and you're all paying the same wage, it's probably the case that you're not paying enough. So the way markets work isn't you set the wage and say, "Well, this is good enough." You pay what it takes to get the people you need, and if wages have to go up, then so be it, right?"
In the US, my father-in-law got his thumb slashed open, knocking the tendon out of place around midnight one night. They went to the hospital and didn't get care until 7am. The US has all of the same problems that Canada probably has, but with none of the benefits (unless you're rich, I suppose)
It's satire written by Stephen Colbert. You have to look at the context to understand what the statement is really saying.
Take a look at another quote from him, for example. "Baby carrots are trying to turn me gay." There's no evidence for that either. I mean, carrots are just a food stuff and cannot possibly have an agenda. But being said by Stephen Colbert's staunch conservative character, it's a commentary on the severe homophobia exhibited by fundamentalist social conservatives.
This is very similar to how you look at the quote "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." It's a statement concerning the claims of conservatives that anything that disagrees with them has a liberal bias: all members of the mainstream media, wikipedia, scientists. This logic, when applied to the fact that even reality does not always agree with conservative ideals, leads to the conclusion that reality must have a liberal bias.
"Oh hey, while we come up with a plan for what to do, let's go to Subway and get the new cheesy melty Philly Sub." "Oh man, that sounds delicious." "YEAH I KNOW and It's only $5!" "Wow, that's such a great idea!" Switch to a scene of them at subway unwrapping their sub. "Oh, it's so good. What did you get?" "I got the $5 club. It's got..." "That's great, so what's the plan?"
Not even exaggerating. They had an episode too where one of the characters escaped a kidnapping just because he heard his co-workers were going to Subway without him.
(In development) "You should choose not to ride the train."
<TSA expands searches to buses> (In development) "You should choose not to ride the bus."
<TSA expands searches to road checkpoints> (In development) "You should choose not to drive your car."
<TSA expands searches to the sidewalk via vans with mounted scanners> (In development) "You should choose not to leave the house."
<TSA expands to scanning houses> (In development?) I think you see where this is going. This is also beside the fact that the Bill of Rights states that the powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved as rights for the people or the states, so "You have no right to fly" doesn't fly.
The problem is, every one of the arguments parroted by the mainstream republicans through FOX News and social media has been debunked over and over and over again. I had an argument with my father over email about whether or not Obama was a socialist. It went like this: "Here's 5 links explaining why obama is a socialist." to which I get a reply "Heres a link to ObamaIsASocialist.com with tons of out-of-context quotes creating a tenuous link between Obama and some values that are typically associated with socialism by FOX News."
Republicans don't care. They're full of shit, you can tell them that. They just don't care. They don't like Obama. They will find a reason; no matter how full of shit it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Deficit is not the same thing as debt... look it up
Wrong. The democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for a few months and only if you include independents (Guess what? They're not democrats). Then, Senator Kennedy died and republicans had the ability to filibuster (and they did, often).
Bush took us from a surplus to two recessions, including the worst financial disaster since the great depression and a trillion dollar deficit. Obama's deficits have merely hovered around what he inherited, he did not push them further, and he turned the economy around from losing millions of jobs to creating them again. You're full of shit.
I also wanted to mention, the study mentioned here: "The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."
That was done by a CONSERVATIVE think tank. Not an arm of the Democratic Party. Far from it.
Only in your Republican-biased world view is the Tax Policy Center an arm of the Democratic Party. The analysis was done by members of BOTH parties. Take a look: "Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. [...] The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering 'objective, third-party analysis.'"
So, to summarize: an author from one of the country's most prestigious schools, an author that served under a Republican president, a director that served under a Republican president, AND a glowing recommendation from the Romney campaign itself.
You should read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/
"Rosen’s main point is that any assessment of the Romney tax plan that ignores its impact on economic growth is incomplete.[...]
Some news organizations noted the Tax Policy Center did factor in higher growth in its original study. It used a model developed by a Romney adviser, Gregory Mankiw, and found that while growth softened the burden on people making less money, the shift is still there.
"Our results are not qualitatively different, even if we include additional taxes generated from the growth effects," the authors wrote.
The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."
Here's the American Enterprise Institute link: http://www.aei.org/files/2011/09/27/TPO-Sept-2011.pdf
How are you supposed to have "meat" to argue anything when someone has no meat to their plans? Any plans he has, he hasn't explained how to achieve them. Any views he had, have probably changed. I visit fact checking websites on a regular basis and they have trouble checking any claims made against Romney on account of "we don't know what he'll do."
What regulations are you going to cut? "The bad ones?" What tax loop holes are you going to close? "The ones that make it revenue neutral?" What federal programs will you cut? How will you fix social entitlements?
I watched Romney's debating, he just told everyone that they could have their cake and eat it too. That and trust him, when he gets into office it will be totally awesome.
Anybody hear anything about any launch codes?
Pretty good troll. Got a lot of responses already I see.
"The debate raging in India parallels a similar one that has simmered in the United States for decades."
If by that you mean the debate that rich people believe that the government shouldn't be using their money for space; so they can keep it and spend it on hookers and blow... then I guess that's a parallel.
I don't know why the parent post is modded "Funny" it's more "True"
I too, felt them to be generic. Most followed this outline (but obviously much more verbose):
Question: What will you do about X?
Romney: X is good. I like X. When Obama tried to do something about X, he was trying to destroy America. I will not destroy America. I will do good things.
The rest of that paragraph is good too:
"I had an employer write to me the other day saying they had a skills gap, and they really did. It wasn't wages, because they did market wage surveys, and they were paying what everybody else was paying, and all the employers, by the way, are having a skills gap, so it's a big problem. Well, if everybody's got the same problem, and you're all paying the same wage, it's probably the case that you're not paying enough. So the way markets work isn't you set the wage and say, "Well, this is good enough." You pay what it takes to get the people you need, and if wages have to go up, then so be it, right?"
In the US, my father-in-law got his thumb slashed open, knocking the tendon out of place around midnight one night. They went to the hospital and didn't get care until 7am. The US has all of the same problems that Canada probably has, but with none of the benefits (unless you're rich, I suppose)
It's satire written by Stephen Colbert. You have to look at the context to understand what the statement is really saying.
Take a look at another quote from him, for example. "Baby carrots are trying to turn me gay." There's no evidence for that either. I mean, carrots are just a food stuff and cannot possibly have an agenda. But being said by Stephen Colbert's staunch conservative character, it's a commentary on the severe homophobia exhibited by fundamentalist social conservatives.
This is very similar to how you look at the quote "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." It's a statement concerning the claims of conservatives that anything that disagrees with them has a liberal bias: all members of the mainstream media, wikipedia, scientists. This logic, when applied to the fact that even reality does not always agree with conservative ideals, leads to the conclusion that reality must have a liberal bias.
Hence the quotation marks
You've never watched Chuck then.
"Oh hey, while we come up with a plan for what to do, let's go to Subway and get the new cheesy melty Philly Sub."
"Oh man, that sounds delicious."
"YEAH I KNOW and It's only $5!"
"Wow, that's such a great idea!"
Switch to a scene of them at subway unwrapping their sub.
"Oh, it's so good. What did you get?"
"I got the $5 club. It's got..."
"That's great, so what's the plan?"
Not even exaggerating. They had an episode too where one of the characters escaped a kidnapping just because he heard his co-workers were going to Subway without him.
+1 "Capitalism"
There is a border patrol car next to the intersection of I-10 and I-75 on a regular basis, too.
"As for his fundamentalism, he can be all he wants, as long as he keeps his religion out of mine."
LOL. You're not paying attention at all, are you?
(In development)
"You should choose not to ride the train."
<TSA expands searches to buses> (In development)
"You should choose not to ride the bus."
<TSA expands searches to road checkpoints> (In development)
"You should choose not to drive your car."
<TSA expands searches to the sidewalk via vans with mounted scanners> (In development)
"You should choose not to leave the house."
<TSA expands to scanning houses> (In development?)
I think you see where this is going. This is also beside the fact that the Bill of Rights states that the powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved as rights for the people or the states, so "You have no right to fly" doesn't fly.
This is exactly how I explained it to my girlfriend and I think it's a perfect analogy.
Parent needs a +1
God damn it. "Here's 5 links explaining why obama is NOT a socialist."... is NOT a socialist....
Republicans don't care. They're full of shit, you can tell them that. They just don't care. They don't like Obama. They will find a reason; no matter how full of shit it is.
"Obama has not created 1 job."
(Guest) "That's just not true."
"It is if I keep saying it." - Stephen Colbert