Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


VP debate

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
It's because there is no $2 trillion increase. You can't give details to something that doesn't exist. Ryan clearly answered that they're not planning to increase spending from what it's at. He also didn't explain where he's getting the $4 trillion that he's giving out in foreign aid to alien planets, the $7 trillion in doodad subsidies, or the $9 trillion in tax cuts to ant farms.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lion-military/

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense

Romney wants to reverse Obama's military cuts at 4 percent of GDP. This nets an increase of 2.1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Romney did not try to challenge this claim nor the number, and now Ryan refuses to acknowledge the issue as well.

Precisely. It's $2T higher because there are planned cuts which he would avoid. That's exactly what Ryan said, it's not an increase in spending from current levels, just avoiding a cut. We're at a bit over 4% right now. They'd put a floor at 4%. Keeping it the same isn't an increase. An increase over Obama's plan isn't the same as an increase compared to current costs.



Yet you're still paying an increase of two trillion thanks to increased GDP, while at the same time cutting taxes and slashing social programs. Where exactly is this money supposed to come from? While, as Romney has said before, also cutting the deficit, mind.

The two trillion isn't from an increased GDP. If it was the answer would be simple, tax revenue goes up with increases in GDP. But the two trillion is just compared to what Obama's estimates are for future years. IE, Obama says "We're cutting military spending by $2 trillion" and Romney says "I wouldn't do that." And then Obama comes back with "Well how are you going to pay for that big increase you're proposing then?"

There isn't an increase. It stays the same.

Obama's military cuts are projected to only save $487 billion between now and 2021, not $2 trillion. This is why I want to know if spending is going to stay strictly the same under Romney, then why isn't Romney's proposed plan showing a $487 billion dollar increase instead.

You're already at the point where you represent almost half the world's military spending. Do you not think that with all the other problems facing the US, it's irresponsible to throw more money at something you're already incredibly dominate at while allowing your infrastructure (social and physical) to continue to degrade? And note that they're also planning to cut taxes, or at least shift the lion's share of the tax burden downward which will have the same effect on net revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
You're already at the point where you represent almost half the world's military spending. Do you not think that with all the other problems facing the US, it's irresponsible to throw more money at something you're already incredibly dominate at while allowing your infrastructure (social and physical) to continue to degrade?
That would be a different question than whether or not he's actually planning it. I don't feel like getting into it and it's off topic anyway.

Quote:
And note that they're also planning to cut taxes, or at least shift the lion's share of the tax burden downward which will have the same effect on net revenue.
They're planning to lower tax rates and cap the amount on deductions. Not lower tax revenue. There are different opinions on whether or not it works with think tanks on both sides but his plan is not to cut tax revenue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy "the middle class."
It's hard for me to hear language like this, given the monumental contempt the right has had for Obama before the man even had a chance to do anything, as well as their willful preference for making it impossible for him to govern over conducting the affairs of state they're responsible for.

I'm not positing that we debate who shows or holds more contempt for the other, as I'm certain it goes both ways, and I'm sure you and others who hold your views, Lord Ben, also have a gut dissatisfaction and a sour feeling. I just feel as though the magnitude and scope of the personal attacks against the current President have set a new low standard in American politics, and so it's difficult for me to hear punditry that's using the rhetoric of being oppressed.

This is the spiral we now have to live with. We get ever more divisive and contemptuous of each other over slights both perceived and real. I'm starting to wonder when it'll come to actual physical blows somewhere in Congress, as some aggrieved party snaps and visits their indignation upon the opposition with their fists.

It should be clear that quote was me quoting an article, not my statement.

I guess it depends on what you focus on. Some personal attacks by a placard holding guy on the right at a rally are not equivalent to personal attacks from the President of the United States. They're on different playing fields.

Quote:
I'm starting to wonder when it'll come to actual physical blows
Yesterday.

An increasingly bitter California congressional race between two House members of the same party turned physical when one aggressively seized the shoulder of his opponent during a debate, yanked him toward his chest and shouted, “You want to get into this?”

The confrontation Thursday between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman came amid a nasty campaign for a Los Angeles-area seat.

That's nothing. The US has a long way to go before it's this bad.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status