Really? Tv tropes is your cite? We can just print more money? Seriously?
So, to be clear, if Paul Ryan gets his way, there will be toll collector at the end of my driveway and I’ll have to pay out of pocket for my daughter to go to elementary school? Again, I think we are arguing about the best ways to implement these things, not whether they should exist at all.
Good plan. Let’s get a time machine and put the internet back in its infancy and let all of those dot coms come back. Plus cut federal spending in half, because it was 1/2 in 2001 of what it is in 2012.
The budget debate thread is down the hall. I am only talking about how Obama feels that Republicans either want to eliminate infrastructure or somehow don’t see it as a benefit. I’m also talking about how he feels that the difference between Steve Jobs and the wino is the fact that Steve Jobs had the benefit of public roads, even though both had access to the same roads?
So let us be clear: you are seriously positing that Obama believes sincerely in the truth of an obvious contradiction in terms, and you want us to debate that point with you on your terms? Have I got that right?
Unless your daughter is beneficiary of special ed or you live in DC, then the federal government isn’t funding your elementary school as-is.
You and I both know Ryan would never actually implement his proposal. Does that mean that Obama et al. should not take him and Romney at their word that they endorse that plan?
Of course the actual policy debate is at the margins. But that’s not the debate Ryan is involved in, and Obama has every right to be attacking the absurd proposal endorsed by Romney.
[QUOTE=President Obama]
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
[/QUOTE]
prr, I’m not sure what I’m missing. In his speech, Obama clearly states that success is not from intelligence or hard work. There are a lot of intelligent and hardworking people. It’s the public infrastructure that did it.
So since Paul Ryan is running for federal office, you retract your earlier point that he wishes to eliminate public education, which is a state-level function?
You read it that way because of political bias. The fairer reading is that he’s saying those traits are necessary but not sufficient, just as infrastructure is also necessary but not sufficient.
The lies and misrepresentation thread is right here. Since we’ve established that the Pubs don’t actually have a serious policy proposal, only some red-meat platitudes, that would most certainly fall under the topic of Lies.
And that would fall under the topic of Misrepresentations.
Stratocaster, I see you’re endorsing the idea of “any single step can’t fix the entire problem, therefore we should despair and do nothing.” Hardly the can-do spirit that made America great and all that, but no doubt sincere. Now, mind getting out of the way while the rest of us take a shot at fixing it, 'kay, sport? Thanks.
Forgive me for reading your question charitably. You meant to ask whether any federal politician proposes invading the states and taking over their budgetary process? Then yes, I agree, no federal politician proposes that. Was that the rhetorical point you wished to score?
Which gets us back to the point of which mainstream Republican has proposed eliminating public infrastructure. Since it’s a given that infrastructure building has been around since the founding, nobody is against it, and it will continue, why marginalize smart, hardworking, and successful people by noting that infrastructure made success possible when it could not have possibly been the distinguishing factor?
You might as well tell a fireman who pulled 15 people out of a burning building that he’s not a hero because he wouldn’t have done the job if it weren’t for the government pay he was getting, or the fact that his 3rd grade teacher encouraged him to be a fireman. It’s technically true, but it fails to realize the true reason behind the success.
Not all infrastructure is state-funded. A lot of it is federally-funded, and Ryan has proposed ending all of that funding, and Romney has endorsed that “plan.”
Because there is a debate happening about how important it is to continue federal spending on infrastructure. If you concede that it is necessary for commercial prosperity, then you agree with Obama and disagree with Paul Ryan.
A federalism debate on the proper role of federal and state functions is not the equivalent of eliminating schools, roads, and defense.
I agree. We need to avoid conflating two things: (1) debate over the scope of federal spending; (2) debate over the balance of federal/state spending.
I had thought you were making a point about (1), which was that realistically the debate is about marginal changes in federal spending. I was pointing out that Ryan proposed completely ending federal spending.
If you are in fact making a point about (2), then we are in full accord. But if that’s true, then the reason for Obama’s remarks should be pretty obvious to you and are inconsistent with the reading given to them by the conservatives in this thread.
ETA: unless you mean to posit that the states would pick up the slack for anything that is cut from the federal budget. Is that your position?
Hey, folks, remember its Labor Day, a day to thank all the job creators! So extend your personal gratitude to the job creators! Assuming you can get past Security…
… and ask them when the fuck they were going to get around to it.
This is a particularly idiotic post, even for you. I didn’t say we should do nothing. I said what was proposed doesn’t do shit in the grand scheme of things. See the difference, sport? You asked for a cite and I gave you one.
Mitt Romney is a habitual liar—533 lies in 30 weeks.
We can’t expect him to suddenly become a truth-teller on inauguration day if we elect him, and we already know the devastating consequences of having a liar for a president (war on trumped up allegations).
You haven’t offered anything on the revenue side, have you? Only some vague platitude about cutting entitlements, with no further thought apparent.
Until you can offer an actual plan, then yes, you’ve offered “nothing” as your plan.
Do you actually read before you post? I said, in this thread, to YOU, that I would accept the tax proposal from Obama re: the Bush tax cuts. I also said IN THIS THREAD that other tax changes should be part of the debate. What I also pointed out was that increasing tax revenue on the rich, by itself, is spitting in the ocean. God almighty.