Moonlight Graham Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 As has been pointed out, it's tough to ignore the idealogical aspect of this. It's a small amount, but 12% of their funding. Let's cut 12% of defence industry subsidies then ? What would happen ? There's a deficit because of the recession. The budget should be set to match some kind of weighted average of where the economy usually is, with more spending in down years. And we need to stop looking at those receiving funds as always being a problem. Big changes in technology cause huge economic changes in society. If you try to ignore them, then the system will fail completely. That's Keynesian economics, where governments are supposed to run deficits during the bad times and pay it back with surplus during the good times. The problem obviously is that governments don't often pay it back, or not enough if they do, during the good times. And sometimes governments like Reagan and Trudeau run big deficits even during the good times. We're still in a recession, so I wouldn't start making massive cuts now, but they should in a few years if when/if the economy gets a bit better. Make cuts and raise taxes, those are the only 2 options. And I agree with defense subsidies, and oil, big agri etc. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Argus Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Romney will cut spending if elected next year. PBS is gonna have to do some more fundraisers. He'd have to GUT spending to balance the budget -- and that's NOT including his 20% across the board tax cuts. Basically, if he wants to balance the budget and still have his tax cuts he has to stop ALL spending on health care and ALL spending on pensions and just let all the sick and old people die. Is that his plan? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest American Woman Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 His salary is chump change to him. Are you suggesting we have only multimillionaires as political leaders? That was exactly my reaction. Furthermore, I'm not so sure it sends such a great message that the position is basically being viewed as charity. Why not take the salary and do something worthwhile with it? To simply refuse it is to send the message that salary is not even worth it - and/or 'look at me, I'm doing this not for the money, but because I care about the country so much' - which of course is ludicrous, considering he doesn't care to have to pay a higher tax rate to the country - and he has way more than enough money already. To clarify, though, I've seen nothing that confirms that he has said that he won't take a salary. Everything I've read quotes him saying that he's not saying. Seems to be a pattern with him - not to say, not to explain things. Quote
Argus Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Not as screwed up as your pathetic lying and/or ignorance. America spends more per student and more per patient than any other country in the world. And yet it gets less for all that spending. Why? We know about the gross inefficiencies of a profit driven health care system, but not why their education system is so screwed up. We know one thing, though: simply cutting funding is not going to address the issues. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 And yet it gets less for all that spending. Why? Reason number one, teacher's unions. For healthcare, tort reform is badly needed. Many tests, exams, and procedures are done not as a necessity, but for a safeguard against litigation. That drives up costs significantly. We know about the gross inefficiencies of a profit driven health care system, but not why their education system is so screwed up. We know one thing, though: simply cutting funding is not going to address the issues. I agree. Simply cutting funding isn't going to fix them. They need to be reformed. Especially education, medicare and social security. Much in the same way Canada reformed OAS, EI, and health care funding. Quote
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 He'd have to GUT spending to balance the budget -- and that's NOT including his 20% across the board tax cuts. Basically, if he wants to balance the budget and still have his tax cuts he has to stop ALL spending on health care and ALL spending on pensions and just let all the sick and old people die. Is that his plan? Nope, that's incoherent garbage. His plan is to lower rates, and close loopholes and deductions for higher income earners. It's similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan, if you're at all familiar with it. Also, when decent economic growth is restored to even just average levels, and unemployment rates get down to around normal levels, the revenue to the government would increase significantly. You attack the deficit problem from both sides, revenue and spending. Quote
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Nope, that's incoherent garbage. His plan is to lower rates, and close loopholes and deductions for higher income earners. It's similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan, if you're at all familiar with it. Also, when decent economic growth is restored to even just average levels, and unemployment rates get down to around normal levels, the revenue to the government would increase significantly. You attack the deficit problem from both sides, revenue and spending. Again any independent, analysis has shown even if Romney closes all loopholes it will still blow a hole in the budget. I repeating the a lie Shady won't make it true no matter how many times you do it. Even if Romney xlcreates every job he promises to each job he creates would have to pay 500 000 to balance the budget so that isn't going to do it. Quote
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Again any independent, analysis has shown even if Romney closes all loopholes it will still blow a hole in the budget. Nope, that's another flat-out lie from you. I've lost count. One non-independent analysis from a liberal think tank assumes what you espouse. Quote
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Reason number one, teacher's unions. For healthcare, tort reform is badly needed. Many tests, exams, and procedures are done not as a necessity, but for a safeguard against litigation. That drives up costs significantly. I agree. Simply cutting funding isn't going to fix them. They need to be reformed. Especially education, medicare and social security. Much in the same way Canada reformed OAS, EI, and health care funding. All independent analysis shows tourt, reform won't stop the rise in health care costs. This is just all the Bush talking points none of which worked. Romney should at least get some new talking points because we all already know the Bush plan didn't work. It is old and tired, but stop treating the American people like they are dummies and maybe your side can win but you can't win with the same plan that crashed the American economy. Quote
Shady Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 All independent analysis shows tourt, reform won't stop the rise in health care costs. That's another lie. Read the reports about how much malpractice insurance costs doctors and then get back to me. Quote
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Nope, that's another flat-out lie from you. I've lost count. One non-independent analysis from a liberal think tank assumes what you espouse. Yah Shady that I Liberal think thank that was lead by 2 Bush advisers. You are so caught up in their lies you don't even know what is true anymore. Shady here I am going demand that you either support that the independent, analysis done by a former ecomic adviser to Bush was somehow a Liberal analysis or just say it, but you plan to lie as much as Romney to trick yourself into going against everything you have argued for, and for the last 4 years. I I assume you will just run away like you always do when called out on acting like a buffoon. Edited October 7, 2012 by punked Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Reason number one, teacher's unions. They have a more expensive system than Canada, and presumably less of a union presence so this doesn't make sense to me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) That's another lie. Read the reports about how much malpractice insurance costs doctors and then get back to me. Instead of reading the reports on its costs I will just the CBO report on how much money it might save. What does that say Shady, you know the non partisan CBO office which actually looked at your sides plans? Well it says and I QUOTE "about 0.5 percent or $11 billion a year at the current level -- far lower than advocates have estimated." So there you have it trout reform would save 11 Billion dollars a year on health care costs or around 70 years worth of what Obama has saved by just asking doctors to cut prices in Medicare procedures. It isn't a solution, it isn't even close to a solution. Your idea would save less then half a percentage point on what the US spends on health care every year. You solution for the family that has nothing in the bank and the rent is coming due is to look in the coach for spare change. That is the Republicans big plans. Here is the report if you care to read it and actually educate yourself instead of just using the same "Republicans plan to use magic" argument you always use when trying to explain their plans and reforms. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-tort_reform.pdf I guess the CBO is just another "left wing think tank" in Shady's world because it lays out how his solution isn't a solution at all. Now please retract your state that what I said is a lie. I supported it with a quote and a citation. Until you do the same you are the liar. Makes sense though because you support a liar for president. Edited October 7, 2012 by punked Quote
Argus Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Reason number one, teacher's unions. Huh? Teachers unions? But teachers in Canada and throughout Europe are unionized, and while I can't speak for Europe, Canadian teachers seem, by and large, to have higher salaries and benefits than American teachers. For healthcare, tort reform is badly needed. Many tests, exams, and procedures are done not as a necessity, but for a safeguard against litigation. That drives up costs significantly. I'm sure this has some effect, but not enough to even come close to making up a trillion dollars I agree. Simply cutting funding isn't going to fix them. They need to be reformed. Especially education, medicare and social security. Much in the same way Canada reformed OAS, EI, and health care funding. Perhaps. But we still have national health care, and it costs less than the American program and produces similar results. Likewise our social benefits are, as a whole, more generous than in the United States. Just as one small example, Canada, like virtually every other advanced nation on Earth, allows mothers to take time off with pay to both recover from a birth and be with their child. In Canada, that works out to most of a year. Other nations have more generous programs, some less generous. The United States gives a big fat ZERO for maternity benefits and parental leave. So why is it that with all our generous benefits, and all our unionized teachers and all our national medical care and pensions, we are able to close the gap on our deficit, and will, within a few years, eliminate it without any really major sacrifices? Meanwhile, the US has to get rid of pensions and health care? How does that make sense to you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Nope, that's incoherent garbage. His plan is to lower rates, and close loopholes and deductions for higher income earners. It's similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan, if you're at all familiar with it. Also, when decent economic growth is restored to even just average levels, and unemployment rates get down to around normal levels, the revenue to the government would increase significantly. You attack the deficit problem from both sides, revenue and spending. They have a 25% shortfall between revenue and expenditure. Cutting revenue by another 20% will make that deficit even more immense. You think you're going to get a significant portion of that back by cutting loopholes? How about they alter the tax code first, find out how much that brings in, see if they can close the deficit without gutting health care, pensions and educations, and then consider whether a 20% tax cut is sensible? Oh right, the tax cut will inspire massive spending sprees which will perk up the economy. Except it won't. Just like all those corporations sitting on monumental stockpiles of cash, the public will use the money to pay down debt, and try to build a cushion against losing their jobs or perhaps getting sick given there's no health care, or against getting old, given there's no pensions. They won't spend it. They'll save it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 I'm sure this has some effect, but not enough to even come close to making up a trillion dollars It would have an effect of saving 11 billion dollars according to the cbo which is almost nothing when we talk of America, health care costs. As a solution it is just more right wing smoke and mirrors which is why Shady believes in it. Quote
Pliny Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 1) People who run large companies make a million dollars. That's a fact. True 2) Education is a core responsibility of government. False. Especially a national government. I'm not sold that PBS is education vs. just 'media' though. There's good on both sides of this argument IMO. What happened to Juan Williams and several other incidents have demonstrated that PBS has a political bias just as the CBC has a political bias in Canada. Most of the time that political bias is not expressed in what is said but what is left out. Both Canada and the US, with their public broadcasting networks, have demonstrated why they should not be politically funded. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Michael Hardner Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 PBS has a political bias just as the CBC has a political bias in Canada. Even if I accept that, are you saying that privately owned media doesn't have a bias ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 True False. Especially a national government. What happened to Juan Williams and several other incidents have demonstrated that PBS has a political bias just as the CBC has a political bias in Canada. Most of the time that political bias is not expressed in what is said but what is left out. Both Canada and the US, with their public broadcasting networks, have demonstrated why they should not be politically funded. PBS is not "politcally" funded it is publicly funded. If it is funded at all or not has nothing to do with bias it has to do with what the American people want. If someone ran on funding honey boo boo and won then they would able to say that they are going pay to make honey boo boo because that is what the American want done with their tax dollars. This is what we call democracy. Quote
Pliny Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Even if I accept that, are you saying that privately owned media doesn't have a bias ? No. I am not. Fox news has hard news and it has programs that are obviously biased. PBS, NPR and the CBC have to attempt to hide any bias or risk public and political backlash. They have an easier time hiding bias when no alternative point of view is presented. Sun news is biased. CBC pretends not to be because of its public funding but it obviously will not support a position that threatens its funding in spite of an economic recession that makes it hard to sustain the level of funding it receives. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 At present, and for the past 10 years or so, the US federal government is not sustainable. Try 40 years. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Pliny Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Try 40 years. About the time their currency became fiat paper, you mean? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bonam Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 2) Education is a core responsibility of government. Which government? Hint: not the federal one. Quote
Pliny Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) PBS is not "politcally" funded it is publicly funded. If it is funded at all or not has nothing to do with bias it has to do with what the American people want. Yes "public funding" which if threatened by cuts becomes political. It has to do with what government determines the American people should want. If PBS supported conservatism you would be outraged no doubt and wish to cut its funding. It attempts to hide its left wing bias but that bias has become more apparent with the introduction of right wing alternatives in the media. If someone ran on funding honey boo boo and won then they would able to say that they are going pay to make honey boo boo because that is what the American want done with their tax dollars. This is what we call democracy. A ludicrous suggestion. Democracy is not about voting on your entertainment preferences or favorite TV show. But then your ideology insists government be a part of your every choice. Edited October 7, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
punked Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Yes "public funding" which if threatened by cuts becomes political. It has to do with what government determines the American people should want. If PBS supported conservatism you would be outraged no doubt and wish to cut its funding. It attempts to hide its left wing bias but that bias has become more apparent with the introduction of right wing alternatives in the media. Yes but none of your points have anything to do with how we decide how to publicly fund something. If I want to cut say Military spending and you want to increase it we both go out to the public and make our arguments. Then the people vote on that platform and whoever wins get to say they have a mandate from the people to do that thing. Welcome to Democracy 101. A ludicrous suggestion. Democracy is not about voting on your entertainment preferences or favorite TV show. But then your ideology insists government be a part of your every choice. Democracy is about voting on what role your government plays in society even if conservatives do not like that thing. Your argument is Conservatives is right and should be how we make every decision no matter what the majority wants, my argument is democracy is how we should make our decisions regardless of left wing or right wing thoughts. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.