Seriously... why would anyone vote for Romney?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I don't think we can get out of this mess by cutting spending without a tax increase.

The problem is that Obama is not going to reduce the national debt. I'll bet you $100 right now that the national debt is greater than it is now when his 4 years are up. That is a fundamental problem.

Would've been the same with Romney.

There's a reason neither he nor Ryan would show their math.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't think we can get out of this mess by cutting spending without a tax increase.

The problem is that Obama is not going to reduce the national debt. I'll bet you $100 right now that the national debt is greater than it is now when his 4 years are up. That is a fundamental problem.

I would not take that bet.

I am 100% that our federal debt will be larger in four years than it is now. Even had Romney gotten elected, that would still be the case.

Erasing our current deficit completely within a year or two, is simply NOT possible, nor would doing that be a good thing for a host of reasons.

Our government and economy are not things that can turn on a dime. We could slam things down, raise taxes and gut spending all in one year, but the shock to our economy would be large enough to spark another recession. THAT we do not need.

What we can, and should do, is attack it from both ends, gut up the sacrifices and work to cut the deficits as much as possible, with a 5-10 year horizon or so to work into real surpluses.

Large things like our country have momentums all their own, and the best you can do is apply steady pressure to get it where you want it to go.

I think Obama understands this. Regardless of what you might think of him, you should be hoping I am right about that.

I think we have an opportunity to get this thing done that we both want, and we should be pushing our congressional reps, Dems and GOPers to do that.

[RandomGuy]

Would've been the same with Romney.

There's a reason neither he nor Ryan would show their math.

Exactly. They were hoping people wouldn't notice. Most on the right obviously didn't. Sad, but a political reality.

[RandomGuy]

How are you letting Obama off the hook here??? When he went into office the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. And yet he has never got a budget to pass! I agree with most of the reasons you listed why Romney lost. That is a shame too since the issues that dominated those demographics should be subordinate to the issue of the national debt.

Meh. Most of the US government debt is held by banks, insurance companies, and retirement funds. We owe it to ourselves, and all of those en ies absolutely need that debt as part of their balance sheets, so that they have stable, very low risk assets.

The US government can crowd out other people wanting to borrow money, but all in all, US government debt at all levels is not inherently a bad thing.

Again, I think we should cut our governments debt back a bit to keep it manageable, but eliminating it entirely is neither feasible, nor desireable, IMO.

We have a lot of other pressing concerns.

[Heath Ledger]

Its hard to pass a budget when the republicans from day one were out solely to make him a one term president. Ring a bell?

[RandomGuy]

Its hard to pass a budget when the republicans from day one were out solely to make him a one term president. Ring a bell?

Yes, it does.

The record number of Senate filibusters speaks volumes to that.

Republicans in congress rather obviously chose on several occasions to simply block legislation they might have otherwise supported, and that confused me as to why they blocked it. The only explanation that I could come up with was that the GOP in congress hated Obama so badly, they were willing to vote down things for the sole reason that Obama would have been able to take credit for it. Party over country. Not that you could get any of them to admit to it.

Most people don't pay so much attention to like that, but it was rather palpable for the last 4 years if you were.

[tlongII]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.

[ChumpDumper]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.

None of Romney's did either.

[RandomGuy]

While "party over politics" I'm sure played a role the fact of the matter is that none of Obama's budget proposals addressed the growing debt issue. Apparently you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's the biggest problem we have right now BY FAR. When you are broke you are broke. I don't care who you owe the money to.

1) Obama's proposals did address budget issues. Provable, and easily so. Raising taxes directly addresses deficits by reducing them. These proposals were fought and defeated in the House by the tea party caucus.

2) I do think it is a big deal. I have said so already. Again provably wrong, and downright dishonest on your part.

3) It isn't the biggest problem we have at the moment. There is even a fair argument to be made that it isn't even a problem, but that is a section of economics I have not read enough about to evaluate, so it is not something I am going to claim. I will say it is an important problem, but I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to fix it.

[RandomGuy]

None of Romney's did either.

I call it the "magic pony" solution. Cut taxes and the magic ponies will make everything better and deficits magically disappear. If they had gotten specific about the cuts and tax code gimmies they would have had to do to get the budget where they wanted, no one would have bought it. If tlong was informed or honest enough, he would know that already.

[ChumpDumper]

I call it the "magic pony" solution. Cut taxes and the magic ponies will make everything better and deficits magically disappear. If they had gotten specific about the cuts and tax code gimmies they would have had to do to get the budget where they wanted, no one would have bought it. If tlong was informed or honest enough, he would know that already.

They didn't have time to explain! they're busy, busy men!

[RandomGuy]

They didn't have time to explain! they're busy, busy men!

MATH!!

LOOK WE DISCOVERED MATH!!!

[tlongII]

1) Obama's proposals did address budget issues. Provable, and easily so. Raising taxes directly addresses deficits by reducing them. These proposals were fought and defeated in the House by the tea party caucus.

2) I do think it is a big deal. I have said so already. Again provably wrong, and downright dishonest on your part.

3) It isn't the biggest problem we have at the moment. There is even a fair argument to be made that it isn't even a problem, but that is a section of economics I have not read enough about to evaluate, so it is not something I am going to claim. I will say it is an important problem, but I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face to fix it.

That's a bunch of horse . The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

[RandomGuy]

That's a bunch of horse . The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

I understand that. You said Obama didn't propose anything that might help the deficit. That is factually incorrect, and I pointed out why. I didn't say cuts weren't needed.

[tlongII]

I understand that. You said Obama didn't propose anything that might help the deficit. That is factually incorrect, and I pointed out why. I didn't say cuts weren't needed.

Wrong. Merely increasing taxes does nothing to address the debt issue.

[Rick Santorum]

The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending.

Romney's idea of spending cuts = increasing the defense budget by 2 trillion dollars

[Rick Santorum]

But he was gonna cut PBS though!

[RandomGuy]

Wrong. Merely increasing taxes does nothing to address the debt issue.

He proposed both tax increases and spending cuts. The overall proposal was roundly rejected by the house for the first part.

Increasing taxes would address the debt issue. If your net income is negative, and you increase your gross income faster than your expenses increase, your net income will not be as negative.

This is basic math.

If you can't understand basic math, I guess we can stop.

[tlongII]

He proposed both tax increases and spending cuts. The overall proposal was roundly rejected by the house for the first part.

Increasing taxes would address the debt issue. If your net income is negative, and you increase your gross income faster than your expenses increase, your net income will not be as negative.

This is basic math.

If you can't understand basic math, I guess we can stop.

If your incoming financial stream is less than your outgoing financial stream you are doing nothing to address your debt. That is basic math. If you don't understand that, then you're right. We can stop.

[RandomGuy]

If your incoming financial stream is less than your outgoing financial stream you are doing nothing to address your debt. That is basic math. If you don't understand that, then you're right. We can stop.

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

[tlongII]

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

Bull . And guess what? I understand such things intimately as well.

[tlongII]

I am an accountant. I understand such things intimately.

Your statement was "Obamas proposals did *nothing* to address the debt". I pointed out that his proposals would have decreased the long term amount of debt, over doing nothing. You were factually incorrect.

"nothing" and "something" do not mean the same thing. Perhaps we shouldn't be having a math discussion, but a discussion about grammar?

Better:

"Obama's proposals didn't do as much as I[tlong] wanted to do about the debt".

How can we talk about such things meaningfully, if you aren't being fair or accurate? Don't such important things deserve both?

Bull . And guess what? I understand such things intimately as well.

[ChumpDumper]

tlong believes important things deserve neither fairness nor accuracy.

[Heath Ledger]

Yes, it does.

The record number of Senate filibusters speaks volumes to that.

Republicans in congress rather obviously chose on several occasions to simply block legislation they might have otherwise supported, and that confused me as to why they blocked it. The only explanation that I could come up with was that the GOP in congress hated Obama so badly, they were willing to vote down things for the sole reason that Obama would have been able to take credit for it. Party over country. Not that you could get any of them to admit to it.

Most people don't pay so much attention to like that, but it was rather palpable for the last 4 years if you were.

As i said before i voted Republican the last 3 elections but this party before country bull needs to stop and like immediately. We are doomed until it does.

[Heath Ledger]

That's a bunch of horse . The way to reduce the deficit must include cutting spending. Why would you take more money away so it isn't invested to stimulate the economy? I would rather not follow the model of Greece, Spain, France, etc.

Oh you mean so the rich can "invest" and hide their assets in instruments and shelters over seas like Romney? How American!