The debates on the Debates

I don't know if this helps. It's from the BBC. BBC News - US election: The key issues

There are some other issues that I would expect to be big, but aren't. Examples:

* Housing
* Jobs (I'm not hearing any detail from either side)
* Climate change (I'm guessing neither side wants it on the table)
* Europe and how the USA will deal with the crisis and its impact
* The Federal Reserve
* Education
* Gay rights
* Privacy and human rights (and the violation of same)

I'm also disappointed that some of the other runners (Jill Stein, for example) get no voice at all, at least from what I can see.

I think the two main contenders have managed the agenda.

 

I'm actually not much of a couch person and I love a grand adventure.

Reading through your comments I have to ask what do you think Romney should sell first to pay for his plans? The Military? We could rent it out? Maybe he could find a buyer for The Smithsonian? Or the National Library. What do you think he should sell for this "adventure?"

Sorry not voting for a guy that can't give me answers and when he does supply the answers they are completely dependent on the audience.

 

Big Bird and Planned Parenthood

 

Those are Romney's plans, he has put out those details. Problem is with the many trillions needed those moves will make up a few million or maybe a billion or two. Really nothing more then a percent or two of a percent. Another reason I think Romney/Ryan suck at math. Or are just flat lying. Not to mention there just moves to appease the right who think women's health is a evil issue and Sesame St. is a commie plot to brainwash children.

 

Well, the big hits would need to be in education and Medicaid. The EPA would be another, but that is a much smaller saving. It has to be these because almost everything else of any significance is off the table - unless he changes his mind later and does cut some things he said he wouldn't.

There are savings to be made through growth and improvements that reduce unemployment, reducing the need for support to the unemployed. These are built into the system and don't require "cuts". The big question is whether any of that would happen - and the Romney campaign gambles that tax cuts will bring this about as far as I can tell. It's a massive gamble with little in the way of precedent to support it.

The only other saving is via "eradicating loopholes". This mainly comes from the rich, surely? Or does "loophole" not mean what we think it means? It's difficult to see how much exctra revenue can be brought in this way (even though it should be done). There have to be massive holes still to be filled. Which brings us back to education and Medicaid.

 

The biggest piece of the discretionary spending pie is defense, but that is off the table for Romney.

So is any revenue increases by letting the Bush tax cuts for the top one percent expire.

Without both, there is no realistic or honest Romney plan for debt reduction.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM ---
Mark Zandi, a McCain economic advisor in 08, is the latest to state that closing all tax loopholes and deductions currently given to the wealthy wont make up for lowering the top rate by 20%.

So, either the middle class pay higher taxes or even more non-defense discretionary spending has to be cut that will cripple many working families or the debt goes up.

Simple arithmetic.

 

Or simple fraud.

Either way the numbers don't add up and all the "grand adventures" schemes in the world won't change that. I lean toward fraud myself because I give Romeny and Ryan the benefit of not being idiots... they're just betting the average voter is which is- sadly a pretty good bet.

 

I'm not sure it's an either/or. I predict that all of those things will happen (though the income tax rate itself may not increase, the burden will, as will the gap between the richest and everyone else).

 

[20]American Jobs Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Most recently, the pro-veterans Republicans in Congress even blocked the much smaller ($1 billion) Veteran's Job Corp Act that would have provided grants to state/local govts to hire veterans as police/fire/ems, provided job training programs for vets, transition assistance to vets, etc.

 

One? The other? Both? Really it doesn't matter much in the end. The result is the same- more of the same. The wealthy get more wealthy and the middle class works harder for less. The poor? Romeny's already said he's not concerned about them so we know what they're going to receive.

Every time, lately, I hear or see Romeny speak I can't get Harold Hill out of my head.

 

Jonie,

Yes, I know about the Jobs Act. My point was that it doesn't seem to be discussed much in the debates (in detail). The agenda has been fixed by the parties involved and, in my opinion, it misses some important stuff.

 

i don't quite get how imposing exactly the kind of austerity (except for the wealthy and the military of course) that is suffocating much of europe, based on a logic that is straight out of herbert hoover, could be understood as a big adventure. except maybe in the sense that hanging yourself from a door frame is a big adventure.

this quite apart from the obvious horseshit that is romney's actual "plan."

 

It probably hasn't been carted out because of it's unpopularity with both sides, for different reasons. Still, it's "a plan" in comparison to "no plan."

Of course the amorphous Romney/Ryan plan is destined for success because Romney has an interest and experience in working with the "other side" whereas President Obama has proven himself to be a stonewaller.

And the moon is made of cheese.

 

it is remarkable the extent to which the inhabitants of that special reality of conservativeland have managed to figure a way to see themselves as persecuted by joe biden's facial expressions. what makes it funnier is that the party of roger ailes and karl rove is complaining about decorum in politics. (i read that line somewhere).

0f course, the right cannot be honest about libya because among the main problems is the consequences of the rumsfeldian emphasis on private mercenaries...er "security companies"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/private-security-hovers-as-issue-after-embassy-attack-in-benghazi-libya.html?ref=global-home

private security contractors. yet another failed conservative idea.

 

Watched the VP debate in full last night.

In terms of persuasiveness, Biden had Ryan beat hands down.

I do realize that the American nature of being left or right in every matter causes for much ridicule from either side towards the other, but it is laughable how people attempt to characterize Ryan's performance.

Yes, he looked like a teen prematurely challenging his father/uncle at times, but overall he was a formidable opponent on the debate stage. On the other side of the coin, Biden's behavior was often justified, but at times quite patronizing and inappropriate for a debate.

Maybe the amount of ridicule is based more in left vs right idiocy, than the actual debate. In that case, I take my hat off and let you guys continue in being self-righteous.