October 4, 2012
"Mitt Romney will create 12 million new jobs, when President Obama couldn't."
A new ad, which reminds me of promises Obama made the first time around. Must we oust Obama because he couldn't keep his promises? Perhaps the answer should be yes. Either do what you said or you must rotate out and give the other guy a chance to try to do what he says. If he can't, we'll oust him too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
345 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 345 of 345Yashu wrote: I'm an oikophobe.
What a great word, especially when put in context by Taranto.
Tyrone Slothrop said...
The only effective means government has to "create" jobs is to lower taxes and decrease regulation. The government never has, and never will, create the wealth that is necessary to "create" jobs, and they can't do it merely by robbing Peter to pay Paul. The best thing government can do is to remove as many restrictions on commerce as it can safely do. That's the closest govermnment will ever come to "creating" jobs.
================
Ayn Randian drivel.
Good effective government providing domestic and international protection, education, facilitating free flow of commerce, developing and maintaing critical infrastructure investments, law is indispensible to individual success.
Part of why Elisabeth Warren, the Loathsome Dove's arguement is effective. Like the Marx/Engles critique of capitalism, it is substantially rooted in the truth.
If you disagree, try your Individual Freedom-Lover!!! case out in lands where no government hassles the tribal and individual Freedom Lovers!!! who are only accountable to themselves.
You know. Yemen. Afghanistan. The Congo. Somalia.
Or just go back to older America times when a Freedom Lover!! trying to get rich on the sweat from his noble brow on a Great Plains farm would have been up shit's creek without protection from Indians and any roads or rail to get the fruits of his noble labor to market..where he couldn't get evil Gummint money for his goods but had to barter with other Freedom Lovers!!who had managed to get other things with no help from anyone else.
Madison Man and Baron, I concur with getting rid of the Dept of Ed, TSA, Homeland, and there's probably a lot more we could get rid of too. Get rid of the requirement to have an Ed degree to teach. There are a lot of people with non-Ed degrees that could be in schools and teaching and probably doing a better job than many with an Ed degree (and I say this as one who started out my college program in an Ed program to be a elementary ed teacher - I now have a BS in Business and I am one class away from my MBA).
To those that say cutting PBS (and NPR) funding won't make any difference in the deficit, I say maybe not by itself, but added together with other "won't make any difference" budget items it will make a difference.
And Big Bird is in no way in danger even if federal funding for PBS is cut off. Look at all the money Big Bird, Elmo, Bert and Ernie, Snuff, Oscar, Prairie Dawn, and all the rest bring in with toys and licensing... They'll do just fine...
"@ricpic: Here's what I mean and what I suspect Klum misses:"
Let me guess: the "hard & salty" variety?
MM,
No one is claiming you can substantially reduce the deficit by cutting funding to PBS. But if we can't agree to even cut this out of the federal budget, we're in trouble. Romney also mentioned means testing Medicare. This alone won't balance the budget either. But it's a good start. Do we want to borrow money from China to pay for the Koch brothers and Soros health care? Obama does. Romney doesn't.
Romney's other good point was that the most effective way to lower the deficit is to reduce unemployment. More people working means higher tax revenues. Obama's high deficits are part of his failures to help generate economic growth. He promised 5 mil green jobs but he hasn't delivered. He's just added $90 billion more to the debt by subsidizing these unicorn jobs.
I don't even like Romney, but he did a great job last night showing that he will not be as bad as Obama.
MM
The smack talk about cutting CPB is the equivalent of poking a liberal in the eye. Bringing it up in a comment thread as a legiitmate fiscal line item to be considered is the equivalent of a gang sign. "Kill Big Bird! Yea! I'm one of you"
You know the 'Bamster is in trouble when the AARP tells him to stop mentioning them when he talks up 'Bama-Care:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/aarp-to-obama-dont-mention-us-again/article/2509844
Why Obama is full of crap and the American people should wake up.
"At a campaign rally, Obama said Romney is "just churning out the same ideas that we saw in the decade before I took office . . . the same tax cuts and deregulation agenda that helped get us into this mess in the first place."
It's a standard Obama talking point. But it's not true. Bush's tax cuts did not cause the last recession.
In fact, once they were fully in effect in 2003, they sparked stronger growth — generating more than 8 million new jobs over the next four years, and GDP growth averaging close to 3%.
Those tax cuts didn't explode the deficit, either, as Obama frequently claims. Deficits steadily declined after 2003, until the recession hit.
Nor was Bush a deregulator. Conservative Heritage Foundation's regulation expert James Gattuso concluded, after reviewing Bush's record, that "regulation grew substantially during the Bush years.""
Apparently this was Obama's largest Political Rally of the 2012 campaign. (I read that on Twitter.)
Getting rid of Big Bird will save millions upon millions of dollars.
A million here and a million there and it adds up to real money.
If you can't cut that waste of money than you can't cut anything.
There is no reason why the government should be in the broadcasting business.
TV or radio.
Winger gang sign that is.
"Did you read that Moochelle post at Gateway Pundit????"
SMACK DOWN!!!! I bet liberals are PISSED AND HURT!!!!
garage mahal said...
MM
The smack talk about cutting CPB is the equivalent of poking a liberal in the eye. Bringing it up in a comment thread as a legiitmate fiscal line item to be considered is the equivalent of a gang sign. "Kill Big Bird! Yea! I'm one of you"
You're right. We should cut funding to whatever phoney balony public job you have.
In the interest of comity I will be happy to compromise with Mr. Mahal.
You can keep Sesame Street if we can drill for oil on it.
gm is a psycho.
Hey but he is still alive.
Bin Laden is dead.
Haven't you been paying attention?
NASA is only half of one percent of the Federal Budget, but of course it's something *I* like.
None of these things are something the government really has to do and it's so very easy to just add this little half a million here and that little million there because it would be *nice* and it's just a drop in the bucket.
But the bucket is full of drops.
But that's the same way entitlements grow, too. They start out as something to help people who have suffered a disaster or as a program that's *supposed* to be a self-funding retirement program, and they get added to... this little addition here would help people who still have it hard, that expansion there would help people who are struggling, have you no compassion?, and we can pay for it by borrowing from Peter, it will all work out.
The bucket is full.
If we have to start emptying it with a pipette, so be it. At least it will get our collective heads in the right place.
Must we oust Obama because he couldn't keep his promises?
Do you promise to consider the answers? =)
No one can predict the future. Politicians are required to make the promises (coming around every four years begging for votes). So let's set promises aside.
You have some experience (though not quite yet with Obamacare), and his policies. Do you think these policies will lead, with high likelihood, to the environment you want for you and your kids. I add "high likelihood" since government programs are hard to get rid of, so screw ups hurt for a very long time.
And second, you have to ask yourself whether having what you want is OK if it forces unwilling people to support your vision of the right environment.
Incidentally, Obama was a special case. He promised everything to everyone with "Hope and Change," and you the voter fill in the blank. I don't think there is enough paper in the world to write down all those promises.
You have to start somewhere.
Big Bird, the pervs at the TSA, the loonies at the Dept of Education are all good to go.
Hey but he is still alive.
Bin Laden is dead.
...and Ambassador Stephens lived happily ever after.
Debate #2 is about Foreign Policy -- goody!
"(I read that on Twitter.)"
Lol.
Must be true.
Twitter makes Wikipedia look reliably authoritative.
"You have to start somewhere."
Yes.
Because, if we can't cut PBS and NPR, we can't cut anything.
Holding politicians' feet to the fire?
"Sadistic" much?
Course it might be cool to see some of you highlighted on "Criminal Minds".
I could say, "WOW"!
"I think I know that guy!"
Profilers, like the ones on "Criminal Minds" would be all OVER your ass!
Course then the gay activists would be all over THEIR asses.
Metaphorically speaking.
It's pathetic that CPB has a franchise like Sesame Street but still can't break even without government subsidies.
Do liberals ever consider that it's in PBS/NPR's best interests to go independent? Isn't that, like, a hot commodity on the left? Independent media? When did the left start to covet government mouthpieces?
I mean, holy shit. We have the internet now. You don't need radio towers to syndicate left-wing talking points! Use podcasts like everyone else. Get a station on XM. Hello? Pandora? Durrrrrr.
No wonder liberals despise business so much. They're no fucking good at it!
And shouldn't it be "where"? "Mitt Romney will create 12 million jobs where Obama couldn't." Saying 'when' is nonsensical. Is Romney going to time travel? You know, travel back in time, dispose of McCain, run for president, win, then create those jobs? To make the 'when' make sense, he'll have to replace the last 3.75 years with his own alternate reality. Sorry, but the left's already done that, and there's only enough room for one alternate reality in this town. Jerk.
How dare you, Mitt? How dare you touch the great and best POTUS Obama?
You are finish. This is the Sean Connery/Bond in Untouchables and Dr. No talking. We will DESTROY you.
Every child, man, and woman will learn about 47%.
No one will know the Race/Video/Wright. No press will cover it.
They will only cover 47%.
Romney, do you not realize that he is the POTUS. How dare you look at him? How dare you challenge him?
You are a pedestrian. We will NEVER LOOK at your UGLY, WHITE, Traitor Face.
Forget you, Mitt?
Note to liberals if you like your Big Bird you can keep your Big Bird but you will have to get all the Hollywood types who tweet about it to donate money to PBS instead of buying additional mansions.
I was going to suggest following the bouncing balls ...
But then two guys with breasts showed up!
All four breasts were paid for, but I suspect the guy who ATE his way there had a helluva better time.
I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass? And I'm not talking about people that know they're getting fucked by Republicans, and vote that because they think its pissing some liberal off.
NOT COOL, fatty!
It's 2012, idiot.
We're holding "feet to the fire"!
I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass?
If only everyone were as smart as President Obama, as he so ably demonstrated last night.
Is it just me, or does it stink in here?
What the heck, garage, at least the Republicans are willing to consider using lube.
(No, I honestly did not just write that.)
And a condom.
It's not much, but the lesser of two evils. *shrug*
How dare you, Mitt? How dare you touch the great and best POTUS Obama?
You are finish. This is the Sean Connery/Bond in Untouchables and Dr. No talking. We will DESTROY you.
Every child, man, and woman will learn about 47%.
No one will know the Race/Video/Wright. No press will cover it.
They will only cover 47%.
Romney, do you not realize that he is the POTUS. How dare you look at him? How dare you challenge him?
You are a pedestrian. We will NEVER LOOK at your UGLY, WHITE, Traitor Face.
Forget you, Mitt?
I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass?
AndyR is going to switch parties.
garage mahal farted: I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass?
You're fudging facts there, garage. Classic oikophobia.
WE are the arbiters of "holding feet to fire".
Man boobs?
Your tootsie roll toes are m.e.l.t.i.n.g ....!
For the zillionth time, Presidents do not create private-sector jobs. Neither does Congress. They get out of the way, and let the private sector create those jobs.
If 12 million new jobs are created under Romney, it will be because of what he didn't do -- not because of what he did.
Alex said...
If I were Obama I'd just continue the Bain Capital attacks, play class warfare to the hilt. Triple down on it.
Fuck that, I'd rather have him give me the money and I'll make better use of it and cut him a deal that will make him better off than he is now. And that's without him getting involved. However, I have to call Hillary on her cattle futures. :D
Baron Zemo said...
You have to start somewhere.
Big Bird, the pervs at the TSA, the loonies at the Dept of Education are all good to go.
You could gut half of the dept. of agriculture alone. Agro subsidies would all go bye bye. Make it or break it farmer john. Dept. of energy. Dept. of Transportation. I'd cut commerce, Bureau of indian affairs, several offices with DOJ, DOD. All of education. And the Ad Council in Pueblo Colorado.
garage mahal said...
I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass? And I'm not talking about people that know they're getting fucked by Republicans, and vote that because they think its pissing some liberal off.
Well, that explains it all right there. Hey garage, become a republican and at least get some action. You could use it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to-F_MQTvCw
I WILL NOT LOOK AT YOUR UGLY FACE, MITT.
-POTUS BHO
Sesame Street can pay its way ten times over, and carry a lot of other PBS programming with it.
Corporations and wealthy individuals can up their contributions.
Partnerships could be formed with wealthy educational institutions. The Harvards, Yales and Stanfords, or even the Andovers, Exeters and Punahoes could create programming and use some of their massive endowments for a public good other than themselves.
The less wealthy public can give at a much higher rate if they care about the stuff that might be cut.
The notion that PBS will disappear if federal funding is eliminated is ridiculous. It would change some, and probably for the better.
Get some imagination, lefties.
When wingerrs say "government can't create jobs"' there are tens of thousands of businesses that are sheepishly and quietly laughing. Not to mention Republicans pols with, you know, government jobs for life. Great racket to be in.
How about Glenn Reynold's proposal (for his “2016 campaign”), to wit:
“4. Budget: A 5% across-the-board cut in spending, repeated each year of my first term, said cuts to be actual reductions from prior-year spending. Also, federal budgeting to be done according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not the current hocus-pocus. Anyone calling something a “spending cut” when it’s really just a decline in the rate of growth shall be mocked publicly and pitilessly by the Official White House Mocker, Iowahawk.”
Yeah, how about that, McNeil?
Least Reynolds is going easy off the Obama meme and not suggesting "ZERO based budgeting".
Conservative REVOLT! lol
Alex said...
I've looked at the budgets for recent years and I know where most of the spending is...[snip]... distinct categories:
Social Security
You mention social Security as a major expenditure. You are inferring the total expenditure. What is the net expenditure, once the 10.4% payroll tax revenue is applied, and the stupid "tax holiday" reduction in revenue of 2% is re-applied. That net amount, when in excess of collections, is the only expenditure that is unfunded (the rest.by law, is directly funded)...therefore subject to review. I haven't checked recently, but if I recall correctly, the SSA revenues did not fall below expenditure until the 2% idiotic tax holiday scam was introduced. In other words, SSA is not a drain on government expenditure because it is funded in the main by dedicated taxation. In the future, adjustments will be necessary, primarily due to the sum results of added persons to SSA rolls who never paid in to it.
As for budget inspection, with all due respect, honestly, but ... No, you've looked at Executive Budgets proposed. There has been no budget formally adopted for 4 years now. This allows the Executive Branch to spend as they see fit, with spot appropriations, often middle of the night (heh heh) for filling in the shortfalls caused by the [95% x Prior Period $] limitation allegedly in place for Continuing Resolutions. What's listed in a budget is not where the money goes all too often.
I'm pretty familiar with the process, with the last 15 years of my military and Fed career dealing, in large part, with putting together budgets for the Executive Office by every February for roll-up in frigging April. I am familiar with the annual pissing in to the wind drill.
A little known, or realized, facet of "Earmarks" is that they are just about the only way a Congress person can enforce application of an appropriation to what it was intended for in the first place...it is a line item specific appropriation that some Agency wonk can't fiddle around and divert to another project. In theory.
Nope, dudes must be more creative, such as transferring an earmarked sum to another agency, for them to purportedly contract out, near year end, so it's off your agency books and apparently spent properly, but it's not yet really spent in terms of "commitments & obligations", the expenditure devices of government...and it can be, and frequently is, transferred back to the dudes lump sum refund as unused funding...applied to a miscellaneous income general ledger account and bingo...you can defy the earmark unless the Congress person is very diligent and sharp...and some are, trust me. Most aren't.
It is flat out illegal to do this above routine, but it is done and there are just not enough auditors to catch even a small portion of it. A Congress person who tracks every penny is the only security.
There are many cuts than can be applied immediately and more over time. Day one you can flat out cut 50% of all positions in all agencies across the board that are GS-15 up through ES-III. Many Assistant Deputy Assistant Directors and/or Secretariat level folk, will be dismayed.
By the way, it is NOT about cutting it all at once, but beginning the cutting. Some whole Departments or Agencies can be gone. Re-Establishing a culture in government where performance supersedes "process & policy."
One place we could have started (to late now) was say to clip a half dozen ES-I's II's in State Department DC offices and provided a couple reinforced squads of enlisted US Marines at the Behghazi Consulate.
I need to STFU now....I talk too much for my own good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to-F_MQTvCw
I will not look at you, Mitt. I have support from NYT, PBS, and MSNBC. Why should I even look at you? Who are you? Forget you?
I am going to hire debate coaches, from Stanford to Harvard to Oxford. I will have the best debate team from Hollywood. I will bury you.
Promises, promises. How about trying more honestly and rigorously and also responding with more integrity and respect.
Oh, never mind. We'll manage on our own.
We will, you know. No matter how hard no matter who tries to make it so damn difficult. Still, we will. We'll make it, and we will be making notes along the way (at least to the extent that it doesn't interfere with our making it).
Sheesh.
I propose a ____cut in _______ government that i'll tell you about in ________.
#math #serious #wonk
Tell you what Ann, I bet Romney gets closer to fulfilling MOST OF HIS promises than Obama ever did ANY of his.
Who wins this election hardly makes a difference, and when one thinks about it, this actually should be so. It's just that "actually should be so" ought to be a feature, not a goddamned crap-shoot, much less a bug.
Pretty much, I think that pretty much of all of you are pretty much crazy--with a goodly number of exceptions, it's true--but still. It's hard to take most into account seriously in terms building, much less protecting, a life lived.
WANTED DEBATE COACHES.
FREE TRIP ON AIR-FORCE ONE.
PLEASE CALL WH OR CHICAGO HQ.
RIGHT NOW.
"I propose a _A.___cut in __B._____ government that i'll tell you about in __C.______."
Okay ...
A. 50%
B. All administrative government positions in Grades GS-15 up through ES-III, and flag ranks 07 through 10, in all, repeat, ALL, departments/agencies.
C. Beginning 21 Jan 2013....to be executed NLT 31 March 2013.
You will never notice it in service delivery, I promise.
I will not look at you, Mitt. I have support from NYT, PBS, and MSNBC. Why should I even look at you? Who are you? Forget you?
I am going to hire debate coaches, from Stanford to Harvard to Oxford. I will have the best debate team from Hollywood. I will bury you.
Nathan Alexander, great list.
Perhaps we could impose an tax on Hollywood salaries over $1M to fund Big Bird.
Who wins this election hardly makes a difference, and when one thinks about it, this actually should be so. It's just that "actually should be so" ought to be a feature, not a goddamned crap-shoot, much less a bug.
Oh yeah? Explain this please.
America's Politico, don't you get it?
President Eye Candy just doesn't want the job that much. Being president sucks, being an ex-president is a sweet gig.
Besides, whose going to coach him? Eva Langoria? Matt Damon? Hopefully they can send the last three years through a rewrite where the economy doesn't stink.
"garage mahal said...
I wonder how few rubes would vote Republican if they really knew how just how hard they were really getting fucked in the ass? And I'm not talking about people that know they're getting fucked by Republicans, and vote that because they think its pissing some liberal off."
Believe it or not, there actually are people in this country who understand economics. I took economics in college about 1958. That made me a Republican, the only one in my family. I voted for Nixon in 1960 and got a lot of grief from my parents. A few years later my mother told everybody she had always been a Republican..
You should try an economics course sometime.
Phx,
I'll take a crack at it. Both Romney and Obama will run huge deficits. Within 20 years the US will be broke. Europe will be broke before then, whiich will keep the global economy stagnant or worse. Neither Romney nor Obama can do anything about this. California, Illinois, and New York, along with scores of local governments will go bankrupt, defaulting on their pension obligations to public employee retirees. Neither Obama nor Romney can do anything about his. The US will bomb Iran and continue drone strikes and military actions against Islamists.
Revenant said...
For the zillionth time, Presidents do not create private-sector jobs. Neither does Congress. They get out of the way, and let the private sector create those jobs.
If 12 million new jobs are created under Romney, it will be because of what he didn't do -- not because of what he did.
==================
That is the argument that people in societies free of government and the things they do are successful societies.
Welcome to the Congo, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Turns out government does have critical functions absolutely vital to individual success and jobs....and it is critical that government does those tasks and does them well.
So Romney has an awful lot to do to return America to a successful governance model and not do a "hands off, lets be another Somalia of Freedom Lovers!!".
No matter what happens, life will go on. Throughout history people lived under governments far worse than ours or any you'll find in Europe today, but people went on. They had families. They had friends. They lived fulfilling lives. Perspective.
WANTED: DEBATE COACHES.
FREE TRIP ON AIR-FORCE ONE ON MOMENTS NOTICE.
DRINKS FREE AND COMFORT CHAIR.
WORK WITH CHICAGO HQ.
BUILD YOUR RESUME.
PLEASE CALL COLLECT TO THE WH. ASK FOR STEPHANIE CUTTER.
THANK-YOU.
Oh yeah? Explain this please.
Afar, by definition, isn't particularly useful in terms of the close up and personal, phx.
Nor should it be.
Is this response more useful to you in terms of getting it?
The Professor, essentially, phones it in. Then retires to her domicile, all snug and secure, for life.
This isn't an expression of jealousy on my part. It's an expression of how we should all have game in the game. Everything should have some sort of impact on all of us.
The country has become so fucked up that the above will never be. Maybe it never was.
garage: Heard the Tea Party had a huge handful of people at their little counter rally [in VA]. Hope they weren't too inconvenienced by the downtown being shutdown.
Some visual -- I'd say today's Romney VA crowd linked above is almost as big as your taxpayer-funded round-up of dragooned truants.
Once again, garage can't even pull it out of his *ss without messing himself.
Forward!
Afar, by definition, isn't particularly useful in terms of the close up and personal, phx.
I believe in some people's traditions they call it here and now.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Not shockingly, Freeman Hunt and I are in accord, as has been true for many years now. (This is me speaking, for myself. I do not speak for her, nor would I presume. That's the caveat.) Even if when we disagree. Even if where we don't disagree. It's a thing, those two realities.
Her, I trust.
Because, if we can't cut PBS and NPR, we can't cut anything.
Maybe. But a politician who says that's where the cuts will start is simply pandering to the base.
Cuts need to be far more deep and widespread than that -- every one but DC people know it. And yet no makes any real proposals.
"Cuts need to be far more deep and widespread than that -- every one but DC people know it. And yet no makes any real proposals."
Agreed that cuts need to be deeper and broader than CPB; but we're "members/donors/subscribers," and we get all the alarming letters about Congressional threats to funding - from the local affiliate. It's insane, and if it were up to me, we'd pull the plug, but the wife likes them, so we continue membership.
But we never write the f^cking letters they ask us to.
note to Inga:
While your daughter is in jeopardy of being slaughtered by mid-eastern jihadists....
your president wasn't even bothering to care.
You can't be against corporate welfare and support government support of the CPB.
"whores" = troll.
I would start with some cuts to Romney's offshore bank accounts. Why does this cocksucker get to hide his money while we have to cut?
Hahahaha.just kidding. Have a great weekend everybody.
Yeah.
Just kidding.
I just played Romney's portions of the debate backwards. My worst suspicions were confirmed: it syncs up perfectly with American History X.
Still not sure who this "porch monkey" he keeps referring to is, but I'm sure Harper's or Mother Jones will have an exposé on it soon.
I would start with some cuts to Romney's offshore bank accounts. Why does this cocksucker get to hide his money
Oddly enough, it turns out that "his" is not a synonym for either "yours" or "ours".
I would start with some cuts to Romney's offshore bank accounts. Why does this cocksucker get to hide his money
If it's hidden how do you know about it?
Revenant cuts out the part where "we", the rest of us, pay for Romney's decision to not pay taxes in the U.S.
Like the good glibertarian that he is.
garage mahal said...
I would start with some cuts to Romney's offshore bank accounts. Why does this cocksucker get to hide his money while we have to cut?
Now we see it's true colors.
garage mahal:
You, like whatever flavor-of-the-moment presidential candidate or even president-in-the-moment, have precisely ZERO to do with what it takes to survive, much less succeed, in this world as it exists and thus as we find it and must deal with it.
How dare you be as much of an asshole as you can be? Well, because you CAN! I'm sanguine about that, because I'm willing to offer to others the same sort of slack that I sometimes need, myself.
You, on the other hand, from what I can tell, are not so willing--
--and, you, a liberal! a progressive!--
--and therefore, I don't think very much of you.
What about that coffee can full of wooden nickels buried in your yard?
Why is everyone talking about Romney killing Big Bird? WTF is wrong with you people? He also wants to kill Jim Lehrer. And those nice people at Antiques Road Show!
MayBee - and we get Downton Abbey from PBS...
You know what's weird, Kimsch?
Here in London, Downtown Abbey has ads! It's sponsored by a cruise line.
MayBee, Downton Abbey is sponsored by a cruise line here too! Even on PBS. Some European river cruise company. I've seen the boats in Germany. The ads are only at the beginning and end of the episodes though.
That's why I was so surprised when there was an ad break during the show here.
Anyway, you are right. Mitt Romney wants to kill Lady Violet too. And that's just wrong.
(I like that I renamed it Downtown Abbey.)
I love that Netflix is allowing me to watch all sorts of British TV sans ads. It may be older British TV, but it's new to me.
I honestly don't know if you're joking.
The good thing about the debate format is Romney didn't let Obama get away with the straw arguments he is accustomed to and accepts as living facts, having them set ablaze like that must have been a shock.
Killing the connection between federal government and things like PBS and Family Planning is not the same thing as killing outright.
But why kill the connection with PBS?
How many conservatives do you see over there? It is politicized. They deny it, of course, but it is. It's saturated, actually. Rick Steve for example will say something like, "In Finland there is state-supported childcare, now that's 'family values'." Oh, good one, Steve, burn! So interesting watching Steve eat his way through Europe. OooOOoooOOoo Bill Schultz said "eat" at the exact moment I typed "eat". Is that weird or what?
So being public television, they reliably represent only a portion of that population and it pisses off observers who do not appreciate it and know they're still paying for it. Parlaying public money to advance the interests of a political party. Again. People are noticing how that works and object. Thus tea party.
@Garbage Pail:
Why does this cocksucker get to hide his money while we have to cut?
---You, too, can put your money into a non-U.S. bank. Go ahead.
All you need is the usual: address, proof of i.d.....
wait, proof of i.d. is racist!
But if you ever do bother to do it, please stay in whatever country you go to and ruin them.
Cheers, Garbage Pail!
Chip Ahoy-
Sesame Street does the same kind of thing, or at least it used to. It's important it doesn't have ads, I suppose, so parents can say things like "I don't let my kids watch any tv except for PBS".
MayBee - what's interesting is that PBS's preschool kids cable channel Sprout has commercials all the way through. But NickJr, Nickelodeon's preschool kids cable channel, run by a for-profit company, doesn't have any ads at all, at all.
Revenant cuts out the part where "we", the rest of us, pay for Romney's decision to not pay taxes in the U.S.
Bull. You just want to take his money to spend it on things you want and he doesn't.
Get a job, you lazy little shit. Pay for your own benefits.
MadisonMan said...
Maybe. But a politician who says that's where the cuts will start is simply pandering to the base.
Cuts need to be far more deep and widespread than that -- every one but DC people know it. And yet no makes any real proposals.
It is obviously true that we cannot balance the budget on public television. But I'll tell you any manager in corporate america taking this stance would be moved out of the decision making procvess one way or another. Why? Because he's blocking progess. You don't say we can't take care of the easy things until we get to the hard ones. You cut the easiest costs first (a) because you get the benefit while you're making the tougher decisions, (b) because corporate managers are less willing to make substantive cuts in their areas when they see lower priority spending continue in others, and (c) because you never know exactly what you'll find until you look. Sometimes taking care of the lower priorities reduces the nut enough that the remaining cuts aren't quite so daunting.
I'm sure many of the people making this argument including MM are doing so in good faith. But the usual suspects are just putting up roadblocks because they don't want spending cut.
The other thing to keep in mind about spending cuts is the (intentional) lack of transparency in government. For example, the newish financial regulation bill funds an office of political correctness for the financial industry. We can get rid of that without even arguing about the regulation itself. Someone who actually wants to cut spending needs to review the budgets in detail and identify these opportunities for savings.
I have my doubts about Romney overall. But on this subject he may be the best person available since this is a primary focus of turnaround specialists.
just because they make the same promise doesn't meant they'll have the same result. unless you think policies don't matter. obama's policies cause the cost of energy rising sharply thanks to epa attempts to shut down coal, block oil drilling, stop fracking and pipelines, etc. his shift to green energy where there are no big potential for job growth. uncertainty over the cost effects of obamacare has stalled growth of small business. "soaking the 1%" means taxing the entrepreneurs who would otherwise use that money to hire new employees. a love of creating regulations that add to the cost of doing business. all of this adds cost which makes business less productive, less profitable, less able to hire people. i'm guessing romney would be smarter than that and at least have mostly job friendly policies. but again, maybe policies don't matter. maybe jobs create themselves randomly.
Barak Obama and Mitt Romni are two opposite candidate of USA national election. Who will be the next?
Just go http://www.mcminnlaw.com
What a great posting and good job.
durex condoms
AP sez:
I will bury you.
The ghost of Krushchev returns!
Cedrford said,
"==================
That is the argument that people in societies free of government and the things they do are successful societies.
Welcome to the Congo, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Nice strawman.
Turns out government does have critical functions absolutely vital to individual success and jobs....and it is critical that government does those tasks and does them well.
The necessary functions of government are spelled out in our constitution. None of which proscribe what an individual may do with what is theirs. Individuals are free to pursue their own best interests.
So Romney has an awful lot to do to return America to a successful governance model and not do a "hands off, lets be another Somalia of Freedom Lovers!!".
Another. strawman.
After repealing or at least throttling down the ACA, all he has to do is keep his nose out of the economy. The market place will tell us what is needed.
Yours truly, a jew.
You will never notice it in service delivery, I promise.
@Aridog. Excellent suggestion that will never, ever happen. Shit rolls downhill.
garage mahal said...
When wingerrs say "government can't create jobs"' there are tens of thousands of businesses that are sheepishly and quietly laughing. Not to mention Republicans pols with, you know, government jobs for life. Great racket to be in.
"For every dollar the government spends it musty first tax that dollar away from someone."
I don't expect you to get it being as thick as you are.
Looks like Obama is in trouble in Ohio. According to the early voting results.
The facts of the matter are:
a) Bush left the economy in worst shape than anyone knew. We nearly lost the American auto industry, for example. The depth of the economic crisis was not known until late in 2009 when full economic reports were available.
2) Republicans opposed every effort to restore employment, and they continue to. The only policies they would allow at the Bush policies that got us into this problem to begin with.
You can see the unemployment data right here, if actual data matters.
Trickle down economics have been a massive failure. We need to reject those policies, repeal tax breaks for Wall Street speculators, and have big jobs programs.
And Romney won't do that. He will return to Bush policies on steroids.
Alex said...
Believe me I know what I'm talking about. I've looked at the budgets for recent years and I know where most of the spending is.
It's in 4 distinct categories:
Social Security
Medicare
Defense
Direct welfare
Then other major parts:
Interest on debt
Departments of Education, Interior, Agriculture
Alex, stop it with the facts and reality already. Ouchie.
A thought about the debate: First time ever Zero ran something and had a record to defend.
Bush signed everything the Democratic Congress sent him.
Doesn't make him the good guy.
Does make it Democratic policies.
Lastly... Obama got what he wanted and what he spent his political capital on... Obama Care.
That was Obama's choice to make that his priority. If he didn't know how bad "Bush left the economy" when everyone was freaking out about it and Tea Parties were going full blast talking about the economy... that speaks to Obama, his abilities, and his priorities.
Obama also got what he wanted from Republicans for the economy those first two years but the Keynesian input into the system went to Democrat pet projects, to public employees and to cronies and con-artists with Green Energy projects.
Might it have worked if it was done properly? Austrians or anyone else who thinks that Keynes was mostly wrong or at least not a panacea for all problems would say no, but in any case it wasn't done *properly*, which speaks to Obama's ability and priorities. He didn't manage Keynes properly last time because he couldn't be bothered with it.
Bottom line... he failed to do the right things about the mess Bush left him... what is he going to do with the mess Obama left him?
If Obama can rally after this setback, show character, make the case for me that he's a fighter and he has a plan for the future, then I'll vote for him.
If he can't, I won't.
Coketown said...
I just played Romney's portions of the debate backwards ... [snip] ... Still not sure who this "porch monkey" he keeps referring to is, ...
You are a couple decades plus behind the times, in that reference. "Porch Monkey" doesn't mean what you think it does anymore ... unless you are referring to those who formally owned humped back spitting mammals for transportation. And, frankly, they don't give a damn about the "porch" anything reference ... they figure it is normal social behavior that we've lost, and they're right.
Many who grew up in small towns know this, but sophisticated folk from urban centers seem to not get it. Finally, the socially uncomfortable Obamessiah would be the last guy to qualify as a "porch monkey"...he would prefer a throne room or at least a curtain like the wizard had in Oz.
Anyone watch a current episode of Sesame Street lately? It's horrible. Like an ADD cocktail.
I ordered Amazon Prime specifically for the access to Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. I also bought a set of Mr. Wizard DVDs. Shows made before they decided they needed to cut every second and a half, have things flashing around, and practically screaming in kids' faces to get them to watch. Also before they decided to populate kids' shows with characters who have obnoxious personalities one would loathe his own children to emulate.
phx - you have been seeing his character.
Conservatives saw his character before he was elected.
3 AM phone call, he turned over, went back to sleep & the cover up commenced to cover up the death of an ambassador.
I hope the professor didn't get in trouble for commenting on the irregularities of the Obama "visit".
Did somebody come knocking at her door?
Not shockingly, Freeman Hunt and I are in accord, as has been true for many years now.
Yes, we are.
"For every dollar the government spends it musty first tax that dollar away from someone."
-- That's not true. They can just borrow it. From China.
Re: funding for PBS and NPR: Fuck 'em. As long as Ira Glass, Steve Inskeep and Michele Norris are pulling down $300K a year, my tears do not flow.
I think Big Bird would probably make it okay if he got the axe from Sesame Street. He's an articulate fellow. He can sing and dance. But Cookie Monster, man, not sure what he would do in this economy.
"But Cookie Monster, man, not sure what he would do in this economy. "
Make Call Me Maybe parodies.
--a) Bush left the economy in worst shape than anyone knew. We nearly lost the American auto industry, for example. The depth of the economic crisis was not known until late in 2009 when full economic reports were available---
Yet the Japanese & SorKs manage to make a profit here, hmmm,
Ummm we've been losing that industry for years, it's not like it's a shock.
I remember the mid-80s when they were getting their lunch eaten and decided that since the yen was high to RAISE their prices to compete with the Japanese.
OTOH, the green energy big government-funded jobs have lost us $90 Billion?
Small change.........
Trickle-down econ has been a massive failure?
Whaaaa?
Not people have more stuff now than they did under Ronnie. People are affording it somehow.
Obamaphones are funded by that trickle-down idea you loathe, because that's where the taxes come from to pay for the poors' "free" cell phones.
But I'll tell you any manager in corporate america taking this stance would be moved out of the decision making procvess one way or another. Why? Because he's blocking progess.
I think Managers in the Federal Govt have the easiest job. They never have to make hard decisions about letting people go. They complain to the press and the press gins up the umbrage of the people and the people call the congress, and when phones start humming with outraged constituents, congresscritters start to worry about being re-elected, and maybe they can find a way to fund what was cut after all, and they call China.
My cynicism may be showing today.
Shanna said...
@Aridog. Excellent suggestion [vis a vis cuts to ES & Flag ranks I presume]that will never, ever happen. Shit rolls downhill.
That is part of the point. The *management pyramid" in government has successfully been inverted, where the pointy end is now the delivery point for services...the wide base is now the top occupied by myriad **assistant deputy assistant principal advisor assistants** in charge of everything & nothing. No one left to actually deliver much in the way of services.
You are correct in the allusion, however, but the shit you refer to no longer rolls down the hill, it falls directly on your taxpaying head due to the inverted "hill."
"make the case for me that he's a fighter and he has a plan for the future, then I'll vote for him."
He's gonna make a plan NOW? That he will start when 2016? He's clearly telling you he want to do the same thing he has been doing: golf.
Look at what you are doing. You are that woman who keeps taking back her abusing, cheating, unemployed husband, because she's afraid to leave him, to take a risk, to be free. You will make whatever excuse you need to not let him get away.
Oh, and Freeman: Get your kids the DVD set of Sesame Street Old School. Laugh at the hilarious *these episodes were produced at a different time in America and may not reflect the needs of today's preschoolers* disclaimer and then bask in the awesomeness of Sesame Street circa 1975.
No random celebrity cameos or anything that will induce epileptic fits, just awesome psychedelic animated number and letter sequences and kids out exploring their neighborhood free-range style.
"If Obama can rally after this setback, show character, make the case for me that he's a fighter and he has a plan for the future, then I'll vote for him."
-- Rallying should be easy, honestly. The media is already attacking Romney (and sometimes attacking him incorrectly), and Obama will regress towards the mean, which will be painted to look like a rally.
So, you've set an incredibly low bar for him.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- That's not true. They can just borrow it. From China.
I'm no financial market expert, but I'm told by some who are, that China is busing little of USA debt these days. Apparently, our Federal Reserve is buying more and more of it (printing money)so we now can simply loan ourselves fiat (monopoly) money.
If I am wrong, some one please correct me.
My debates with the financial wiz's I know lately have been about the veracity of Intrade's odds making. I mean how can an outfit based in Dublin, Ireland be wrong, eh, especially when they still list odds for Mike Huckabee to win POTUS?
big bird issue is a red herring. only 12% of the pbs budget relies on fed funding. so to cut it out entirely would hurt, but not be catastrophic. definitely not enough to kill your iconic show, one that doesn't cost all that much to produce. (and brings in $50 million a year in toy sales). if 200 channels can figure out how to provide 24/7 programming and make a profit, pbs can too. the way i see it, they did it to themselves when a "public" broadcasting network financed by all taxpayers decide to only hire leftwing journalists and executives who run programing for leftwingers. why should i pay for that, leftists can pay for their own shows. oh that's right, being on the left means you expect everyone else to pay for your stuff.
So, you've set an incredibly low bar for him.
I'll think about it.
MadisonMan said...
My cynicism may be showing today.
If that's the case I must have it bad, since what you say isn't cynical but realistic.
You can look at Federal managers as having the hardest jobs conceivable, or the easiest. Federal managers have an impossible job because they face structural problems the private sector doesn't. The worst features are drastically reduced authority over their employees, combined with a greater level of bureaucratic nonsense than even the largest corporations have developed, and a culture of complacency.
On the other hand they have it easy since they don't face an expectation of performance. So hard or easy depends on whether you define their job as what it is or what it should be. Realists define the job as what it is.
Freeman,
I'd recommend "Beakman's World" too for kid's science on TV. We've been watching again on Netflix.
Can you find Captain Kangaroo on DVD?
How're baby Wyatt and his older siblings?
MadisonMan said...
Maybe. But a politician who says that's [PBS] where the cuts will start is simply pandering to the base ... Cuts need to be far more deep and widespread than that --
Cuts will be, must be, radical and across the board, and even remove a couple cabinet level departments. PBS is merely part of the overgrown government pie...and only at risk because we are broke, repeat, broke, period.
@Marswhall as the concept down precisely....
Marshall said....
You don't say we can't take care of the easy things until we get to the hard ones ... [because] corporate managers [and government executives] are less willing to make substantive cuts in their areas when they see lower priority spending continue in others ...[snip]... I have my doubts about Romney overall. But on this subject he may be the best person available since this is a primary focus of turnaround specialists.
"Turn Around" surgery is what we need now, and we may not get another chance. A couple more new and unnecessary bureau's, agencies or departments, and the critical mass will be impossible to defeat.
I'd go further and say government senior executives are not inclined to see cuts in their areas, period. Anyone within their ranks or near them who does make such a proposal is promptly ostracized.
Sesame Workshop executive vice president Sherrie Westin said there wouldn’t be a problem without money from PBS.
“The Sesame Workshop receives very, very little funding from PBS,” she said. “So we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship. So quite frankly, you can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to trout out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird — that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here. … Big Bird lives on.”
So the liberals are lying in order to gain political support?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Big Bird is also quite the cash cow. So big, in fact, that in 2008 Sesame Workshop’s CEO Gary Knell was able to draw nearly a million dollars in salary.
Nearly a 7-figure salary? Why are progressives supporting such a widening gap between the rich and the poor like this?
The link for "Big Bird will be fine" is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/04/sesame-exec-big-bird-lives-on/
But it is buried under all the progressive lies about "killing Big Bird" when you search google.
Post a Comment