Big Bird's Nest is well Feathered

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

There's the pot calling the kettle black big words from a socialist like you. If LABF and others on this site want to carry Osama bin Laden head around on a stick then they should also take full responsibility for the lives that have been lost by the complete incompetence of the commander-in-chief.

Then I guess we should add in the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 because Bush and Cheney refused to listen to any of the warnings they were given?

[Irish Stout]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

There's the pot calling the kettle black big words from a socialist like you. If LABF and others on this site want to carry Osama bin Laden head around on a stick then they should also take full responsibility for the lives that have been lost by the complete incompetence of the commander-in-chief.

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

When you have the right absolutely refusing to accept _any_ revenue increases, you can't begin any real talk about any real solutions.

Any real solution is going to require working the problem from both a spending and a revenue angle. So far, only the left has given any indication that they are willing to do that. The ball is in the right's court to stop acting like petulant children.

When most of the congress critters and senators on the right have been bullied into a pledge to *never* raise taxes (Grover Norquist) you know you have a bunch of spineless politicians and a short sighted electorate.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

Because many on the Right have devolved into such a rabid ideological state that they no longer see their opponents as simply people with different political ideas. They see them as evil. As traitors. That's what happens when you mix religion and politics, as Atwater did in the 80s in order to get Reagan elected in the South. They let the monster out of the box.

These rabid Right wingers believe in a mythical, anti-historical world of a bygone America full of Christian values and sturdy, protestant ethics. They see their modern opponents though the lens of propaganda: An evil, conniving, communistic, atheistic cabal of traitors intent on the downfall of America and the death of freedom. Do you compromise with such traitorous vermin? Of course not. It's like they are running their own little Riefenstahl film through their heads, 24/7.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

PBS does a whole lot of good for this country.

It's worth every penny.

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

Do you support the "no tax increases under any circumstances" pledge or the forces in play behind that stupidity? I you do, you're part of the problem.

[Requiem]

Department of Defense discretionary budget for 2013: 666 billion dollars. [Discretionary]

Yet, we need to get rid of PBS. Sounds legit.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

I agree with you here, its the same as the QB in the NFL. Too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.

That being said, I don't think its exactly fair to put all attacks and casualties on the President. Some perhaps depending on the decisions he actually made. The President, whether Bush and the 12 terrorist attacks that occurred under his watch, or Obama and the Benghazi debacle, is only as responsible to the level of his assessment based on the information he is given and his reaction. I think the general public will never know exactly what level the knowledge these men actually have at any given time.

Also, for every one attack that is successful, how many times have Bush or Obama (or any prior president) made a decision that ultimately shut down another attack or multiple attacks? You just don't know.

The biggest thing I'm tired of in politics is this straight up bickering. Calling people libtard or rightards or nut jobs doesn't actually help us develop an honest discourse to building a better political and government arena. The lack of willingness to compromise, even on the neighbor to neighbor level, shows us that we're more concerned about our own unique positions than we are concerned about the greater welfare and development of the country as a whole.

So... for whatever its worth, I am willing to compromise and match cuts in spending to a certain level and we can start with Public Broadcasting (which I am an avid supporter of), if we can match it on something else like subsidies to oil companies. There, thats 0.024% of the budget, but we can all agree its a start. So the question is, why the hell isn't this actually being done and working in our government? We don't have to do it all at once in a big package, start with the little **** and work through it first.

Yes but it's kind of like the sign in the zoo that says "don't poke the bear", you know it's not the right thing to do but you just can't help it. Stirring the pot on the WRP is just too much fun.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Department of Defense discretionary budget for 2013: 666 billion dollars. [Discretionary]

Yet, we need to get rid of PBS. Sounds legit.

No one said you have to get rid of PBS or NPR but find sponsors or private funds to keep them afloat. Tell me why this is not possible?

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Because many on the Right have devolved into such a rabid ideological state that they no longer see their opponents as simply people with different political ideas. They see them as evil. As traitors. That's what happens when you mix religion and politics, as Atwater did in the 80s in order to get Reagan elected in the South. They let the monster out of the box.

These rabid Right wingers believe in a mythical, anti-historical world of a bygone America full of Christian values and sturdy, protestant ethics. They see their modern opponents though the lens of propaganda: An evil, conniving, communistic, atheistic cabal of traitors intent on the downfall of America and the death of freedom. Do you compromise with such traitorous vermin? Of course not. It's like they are running their own little Riefenstahl film through their heads, 24/7.

I'm not sure why you always try to tie these together, I haven't been inside a church except for a wedding or funeral in over 40 years. I have several right wing friends that have no religious ties what so ever. On the other hand, I know a lot of left wing liberals that are devout Christians or belong to other religious organizations.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

I'm not sure why you always try to tie these together, I haven't been inside a church except for a wedding or funeral in over 40 years. I have several right wing friends that have no religious ties what so ever. On the other hand, I know a lot of left wing liberals that are devout Christians or belong to other religious organizations.

You deny that the GOP base is heavily entwined with religion?

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Do you think Obama has room on that plate for the heads of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? The way I look at it he is 3 for 3 right now.

If you're going to blame the deaths of those two people on one president, should we blame bush for the thousands killed on 9/11 and the thousands killed or injured in Iraq? Because that's the logic you're using right now.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $445 million per year in public funds but I guess the way you look at it it's ok to put that on a Chinese credit card and expect our children and grandchildren to pay for it all later. I see where you are coming from, they all watch Big Bird so they should pay the bill.

You do realize that largest holders of the US debt is the American public, and that Chinese holding of it has actually reduce over the last couple of years?

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

why not cut pbs and let them sink or swim like any other net work or a tax cut for anyone who gives pbs money why cant pbs survive off of donations or one or all of the networks donate some of their profit to keep pbs on the air. or any of the cable news networks .maybe he shoould take a big ass pay cut ------> current PBS C.E.O. Paula Kerger, 2008 $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007. 2011 up to $632,233.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_...#ixzz28vZBh7Ka

[Irish Stout]

Originally Posted by elsid13

You do realize that largest holders of the US debt is the American public, and that Chinese holding of it has actually reduce over the last couple of years?

Interesting.

China has actually decreased its holdings of U.S. debt over the past year, dropping from $1.31 trillion in June 2011 to $1.16 trillion a year later, according to the Treasury Department. Japan holds nearly as much, at $1.12 trillion. Those countries are by far the biggest foreign holders, but dozens of other nations, including Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, Switzerland and the United Kingdom hold trillions more.

Inside the U.S., private investors hold nearly $1 trillion in federal debt, while mutual funds, insurance companies and state and local governments hold nearly double that amount.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz28vZ9HLyO

Then this article is actually pretty interesting (and simplistic enough to digest quickly) as it explains why China (hint: borrowing from China is a low interest rate bargain that also keeps Chinese consumer goods cheap for us to import): http://useconomy.about.com/od/worlde...t-to-China.htm

[Irish Stout]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

why not cut pbs and let them sink or swim like any other net work or a tax cut for anyone who gives pbs money why cant pbs survive off of donations or one or all of the networks donate some of their profit to keep pbs on the air. or any of the cable news networks .maybe he shoould take a big ass pay cut ------> current PBS C.E.O. Paula Kerger, 2008 $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007. 2011 up to $632,233.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_...#ixzz28vZBh7Ka

Again - Fine, but its not be all end all. Why not cut ALL corporate subsidies altogether? We'll make a dent closer to the size of 4% of the budget, as opposed to 1/400th of that amount which is PBS.

Why pick on just PBS?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Not anymore. Every time the government spends money, it has to be so critical that it's worth borrowing the funds from China. I realize there are much bigger drains on the government than PBS. They are just using Big Bird to scare young moms or others not paying attention to political issues. Big Bird will be fine, with or without PBS. I'm more concerned about spending billions more than necessary on defense contracts, and the unsustainable entitlements.

Cut a third from the military budget, close foreign bases, end the debacle in Afghanistan now, restore the progressive tax system to it's pre-Reagan days, start a national, single-payer health care system, and we are back to surpluses in no time.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by Irish Stout

Again - Fine, but its not be all end all. Why not cut ALL corporate subsidies altogether? We'll make a dent closer to the size of 4% of the budget, as opposed to 1/400th of that amount which is PBS.

Why pick on just PBS?

one is being paid by the government the other is getting breaks on their taxes i dont know what sort of tax breaks they are getting but it should involve hiring qualified people to work for them.
also i say cut some desk jobs that the higher ups in the military get ya know the big shot generals who well just sit behind a desk if there is any .
eliminate the general surgeon position .
cut most of the dept of agriculture jobs salaries .
have pbs cut or eliminated since they are what getting millions of bucks from merchandising why not do it like college sports or high school seseme street can fund those other programs that pbs show that 80% of the us population dont watch

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

What else are we putting on that Chinese credit card? A bloated military? Subsidies to oil companies? Compared with what goes to PBS, it's not even worth talking about.

Obviously everything as broke as we are. It's all worth talking about and everything should be on the table.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Cut a third from the military budget, close foreign bases, end the debacle in Afghanistan now, restore the progressive tax system to it's pre-Reagan days, start a national, single-payer health care system, and we are back to surpluses in no time.

how about foreign aid, does the UN pay any taxes or rent or anything for having a big building sitting there.
the us gov should ask us for ideals seems like some of us got some good ideals we do need the military for defense but i bet there is some people who are doing nothing in the armed forces just sitting behind a desk. and lets have a flat tax like maybe 10% for everyone thats making a decent amount of $$ like the lowest amount you have to pay for taxes eliminate that and everyone else pay 10%

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

You deny that the GOP base is heavily entwined with religion?

I think you will find that both parties are heavily entwined with religion but I think you are trying to lump all people with religious beliefs into the Christian Right movement. So if you are saying the republican base is heavily entwined with the Christian Right movement you are wrong. Both Carter and Clinton had a strong religious base, did you have a problem with that?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Obviously everything as broke as we are. It's all worth talking about and everything should be on the table.

Everything should be considered, but when you think PBS is worth an entire thread, or a direct mention in a presidential debate, you're heading into crazy town.

If you don't address the big ticket items (military/industrial, large social programs), there's no point in looking at the small ticket items. If this were debated in the house, the amount of money spent on the debate itself would dwarf the potential cuts.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

I think you will find that both parties are heavily entwined with religion but I think you are trying to lump all people with religious beliefs into the Christian Right movement. So if you are saying the republican base is heavily entwined with the Christian Right movement you are wrong. Both Carter and Clinton had a strong religious base, did you have a problem with that?

It has been for some time and in the process, has warped Conservative values.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party
A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts

Religious cranks ceased to be a minor public nuisance in this country beginning in the 1970s and grew into a major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson’s strong showing in the 1988 Iowa presidential caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. Unfortunately, at the time I mostly underestimated the implications of what I was seeing. It did strike me as oddly humorous that a fundamentalist staff member in my congressional office was going to take time off to convert the heathen in Greece, a country that had been overwhelmingly Christian for almost two thousand years.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/repu...ard_theocracy/

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It has been for some time and in the process, has warped Conservative values.

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party
A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts


http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/repu...ard_theocracy/

It depends on what you call heavily entwined, accurate statistics are hard to find. Wikipedia said about 68% to 78% of the white evangelical vote went to Bush and that would represent about 23% of the total vote. I don't consider 23% as heavily entwined. Entwined yes but not heavily entwined.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

It depends on what you call heavily entwined, accurate statistics are hard to find. Wikipedia said about 68% to 78% of the white evangelical vote went to Bush and that would represent about 23% of the total vote. I don't consider 23% as heavily entwined. Entwined yes but not heavily entwined.

To be honest, I can't quantify how many, but Santorum does seem to represent many in the GOP when it comes to Governmental social interference. Something no true conservative would consider acceptable.

Lofgren does a nice job of time-lining the Fundamentalist shift, in agreement with Goldwater's comments.