(10-09-2012 08:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 08:26 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Two things strike me about this thread.

First is the persistent lack of understanding of the point Romney was making by the libs here.

Second that no lib here has offered a single sound reason why PBS should continue to be funded by tax dollars.

It is one of the few truly positive things our government does, things like Sesame Street are broadcast worldwide to dozens of nations and provides a positive experience for millions of children each year.

That's debatable.

It's also not the role of gov't.

Quote:I think we should aim for providing our children with an option for television that isn't controlled directly by advertising and the desire to sell merchandise. It's a noble goal,

Once again, it all goes back to how liberals feel. And of course everyone else should pay for it.

(10-09-2012 11:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 10:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 10:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: 400 Million here, 400 million there and eventually you're talking about real money.

Sure, cut 100 of them, and you'd have cut 1% of the budget. And like I've said multiple times before, cut it if it's part of a legitimate plan to make massive cuts and address this issue, but that's not the case here. It's grandstanding for simpletons.

And if you did raise the taxes on the top 1% you would not make much more of a dent in the budget yet thats what the left lives by..

Um, the difference between the two, I'm assuming you're referring to the repealing of the bush tax cuts, is exponential. Numbers I found put it at $146 Billion compared to $444 Million. That's ~300 times larger, so they're not comparable.

How many years is the $146 billion over? The analyses I've seen put the number more like $70 billion a year, which would make this a two-year number, and I'm not quite clear why a two-year number would be used.

Both are little more than rounding errors compared to the size of the deficit--over $1 trillion--or the debt--$16 trillion. Comparing dollar amounts makes sense if you are envisioning either as having a material impact on the budget, and neither does.

What conservatives are saying is that every expenditure, regardless of size, must be evaluated based upon 1) is it necessary, and 2) if necessary, is it an appropriate function of government generally, and in our system, of the federal government specifically. Dollar amount is irrelevant to that discussion.

What liberals seem to be doing is trying to establish this myth that all we need to do is end the wars and the "Bush tax cuts" and everything will be hunky dory and we can just go on printing money. Comparing dollar amounts make sense in that context. Of course, what liberals do is gross up the impacts of things like the tax cuts by using a number that represents multiple years, and hoping the public will be sufficiently misled to compare multi-year effects of the tax cuts to a single-year budget deficit number, and thus conclude that the impact is much greater than in actuality.

(10-09-2012 09:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Readiness reports, put out by whom?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=...8718401571

It would appear that these originate from the Navy. Now if you want to talk about addressing the waste and abuse in procurement I'm with you. If you want reduction in force levels which would reduce our capability then I feel that is naive.