Election 2012

The Big Debate Loser: Fiscal Reality


Federal budget

Mitt Romney rightfully got the nod as the victor of last night's debate, but while he carried himself with style and poise while Barack Obama looked like he wished he could be anywhere but on that stage, neither major-party candidate seriously addressed the big issue of the moment: a federal government that's spending money it doesn't have on big-ticket projects it can't afford. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Military spending were all mentioned by the candidates in Denver, but not in the context of any serious plans to rein in the costs to a level the federal government might pay for on an ongoing basis.

Military Spending

Mitt Romney boasted, "I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military." In response, President Obama rightly dinged his opponent for promising "$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for." But Obama didn't offer up any ideas for cutting military spending himself. And while, last year, Congress did pass a White House proposal for a paltry $500 billion in cuts over ten years, just weeks ago, Obama told a military audience, "There's no reason those cuts should happen. Because folks in congress ought to come together and agree on a responsible plan that reduces the deficit and keeps our military strong. That's what needs to happen."

Social Security

President Obama insisted, "Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound." That's a laughable claim for a program that's circling the drain — and threatening to suck federal finances down with it. But all Romney had to offer in response was, "And with regards to young people coming along, I've got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question." In reality, all his campaign has offered is that "the retirement age should be slowly increased" and "benefits should continue to grow but that the growth rate should be lower for those with higher incomes." That's … not going to do it.


Medicare is in worse shape than Social Security, but President Obama boasts "we went after medical fraud in Medicare and Medicaid very aggressively, more aggressively than ever before, and have saved tens of billions of dollars" — sums that are statistical blips for a program that spends unaffordable hundreds of billions every year. He also talks of a projected "$716 billion we were able to save from the Medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies by making sure that we weren't overpaying providers. …" But, as Romney points out, that supposed savings comes from lower compensation for providers at a time when "15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won't take anymore Medicare patients under that scenario. We also have 50 percent of doctors who say they won't take more Medicare patients."

Of course, if you pay providers so little that they refuse your business, you may save money by default, but that seems an unlikely result of this scenario.

Romney does promise to introduce an element of choice into Medicare with a private alternative, but he also says, "I want to take that $716 billion you've cut and put it back into Medicare. By the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it."


Obama charges that "Governor Romney talked about Medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30 percent cut in the primary program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities." A thirty percent cut would probably be a good start, in terms of fiscal sanity, but Romney counters, "Medicaid to states? I'm not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is, I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best."

President Obama's own plan seems to consist of hoping for the best: "[W]hen Obamacare is fully implemented, we're going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it's true — but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years"

Overall, the debate gave us some broad differences in terms of rehetoric and stated philosophy of government, and big differences in style, but it didn't give us any serious proposals for digging the federal government — and American taxpayers — out of a deep financial hole.

NEXT: On Thursday They Were Terrorists; On Friday They Weren't

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Alas, the three biggest budget items (military, SS, Medicare) just happen to be the three biggest sacred cows in Washington. So we’re fucked

    1. Royally. With chunky peanut butter for lubricant.

    2. One might say they are Too Big To Flense.

      1. I thought one flensed whales, not cows?

        1. Well, female whales are called cows.

        2. You try finding a synonym for “cut” that starts with ‘f,’ okay, smart guy?

          1. Fillet, flay, facet, fell, flitch.

    3. Wouldn’t you expect that? There’s no votes in dumping money into things no one cares about, so you’d expect the sacred cows to eventually end up being the biggest budget items.

    4. Hey, that graphic is actually pretty encouraging. If we just eliminate the spending from the areas the federal government shouldn’t be involved in, we could save at least 58 percent every year. Make some sensible cuts to defense and we could save another 10 percent, and then the 6 percent for interest on the national debt could start to come down too.

  2. I made the mistake of watching the debate and was really disgusted by this. Romney was basically making the argument that we need better government not less government. Fucking awful.

    Fortunately I’ll be on my honeymoon laying on a beach for the next two and I can live in ignorant bliss of the run up to the election.

    1. If only we could get people to understand that government doesn’t just need to be reduced by X%, it needs to be eliminated from huge swaths of society and the economy. Education, etc.


        1. You know, it’s really odd that some compare libertarians, who want little to no government, with totalitarians like Nazis. I think they may not understand the systems that they are referencing.

          1. You’re telling me. That caricature up there is not far off. I get called some variation of fascist weekly because I simply would like to save some money for my kids without it being taxed into worthlessness.

            1. The existence of bloated intrusive government is a given to most progressives. They cannot imagine a world where activities can happen without the government. I once talked to a college student who literally believed the government directed the food trucks from the farms to the grocery stores, because otherwise the grocery store shelves would be empty. It’s a totally alien worldview to me, but it’s extremely common.

              So of course any reduction of the size and scope of government is seen as right wing totalitarianism. You’re handing control over people’s lives from a democratically elected government to a fascist government run by the one-percenters.

              1. Like to some kind of autocrat or something.

          2. it’s really odd that some compare libertarians, who want little to no government, with totalitarians like Nazis

            Here are a couple premises that those people work with.

            Government = us
            Corporations = them

            If something is not controlled by us, it is controlled by them.

            The concept of liberty does not compute. There is only control.

            So when libertarians do not want things controlled by the government (us), obviously they want things controlled by evil profit seeking capitalist corporations.

            Libertarians might as well be Nazis.

          3. well they dont’ understand much at all so why would you expect them to understand that ‘libertarianism’ is not ‘authoritarianism’.

      2. But ProL, without governemnt there is no society…at least not a well ordered one…or one without icky people…anyway that’s what T o n y tells me.

        1. There can be no “modern, civilized society” without my beloved government.

          /T O N Y

        2. Bastiat was around 160 years ago. How could he possibly be relevant now?

    2. I’ll be on my honeymoon laying on a beach for the next two

      Congratulations, man. And since you’re from Michigan, can I assume that beach is somewhere in this area, aka the Redneck Riviera?

      1. You laugh, but my folks have a house just east of there. Its Canucks from October to April and Georgian/Alabamian/Tennesseeans the rest of the year.

        1. I know nobody who goes there.
          My people go to Phoenix or Brownsville.

          1. Sure, but you live in one of those rectangle provinces. It’s the frogs, Ontarioans, and Maratimers who come to Florida.

          2. Phoenix and Brownsville? Do you have something against going to places that aren’t hellholes? Oh, wait, are you lizard people?

          3. I stayed a month in Brownsville after Dolly hit. I wanted to cross the river and get beheaded in Mexico after three days.

      2. I motorcycled that area. Beautiful place. Great people.

      3. I’m not from Michigan. Texan through and through. Also it will be Bora Bora.

  3. 2/3 of the budget is verboten from being touched. Will anyone explain how either clown is going to help. I guess maybe Romney will hurt less…still not sure.

    1. Fiscal reality was no more the loser of that show last night than Gary Johnson was.
      Both were excluded, before the debate began.

    2. If Romney starts a new war, other than the imminent one with Iran, then he will be just as bad, if not worse. But without a time machine, we are farting wet into the wind.

      1. farting wet into the wind

        I must remember this one.

        1. Yes, that is theft-worthy.

          1. I’m here until the end of the world (Late 2012).

  4. neither major-party candidate seriously addressed the big issue of the moment: a federal government that’s spending money it doesn’t have on big-ticket projects it can’t afford

    Why would they? Nobody cares about that crap.

  5. Before anyones asks, yes I hate old people. They’re bankrupting our country with Medicare and social security. They’re bankrupting our states with the pension plans. And they don’t downsize to smaller homes leaving the larger homes in good neighborhoods for families who currently have kids.

    1. The problem I had with Romney’s 47% remark was the implication that dependent people/those who pay no income tax are the exact same people that form the chunk of the electorate that’s definitely voting for Obama. Heck, as we can see from the chart, the three biggest programs by far (SS, Medicare, the military) benefit groups that generally vote Republican. That’s the problem with the country. Everyone thinks it’s those other people and their benefits that our ruining the country. Their goodies are ok, though, and should be off limits

  6. The only solution to this is a total fiscal meltdown; the kind that actually, truly fucks people and makes them hurt. As long as none of us are going without the newest Kindle or iPhone and don’t have to do much more than tighten the belts a little, nothing will change.

    1. Well, as long as it hurts you.

      1. Look, I’ve had to tighten my belt. Instead of going to Wasabi Bistro for sashimi, I was forced to go down to Uwajimaya and buy sashimi grade fish at $25-$50/lb and cut it up myself instead. I’m hurting! I didn’t have any pickled ginger!

        1. Yeah, well, they don’t even serve real wasabi with my sushi–some kind of weird horseradish substitute. The sushi chef told me to endeavor to persevere. Endeavor to persevere.

          1. We thought about that for a long time. And then we declared war on them.

          2. That’s because you go to Blue C Sushi, ProL. You tasteless buffoon.

            1. I just threw out five pounds of pickled ginger. Just because I have so much of it.

        2. I didn’t have any pickled ginger!

          I feel your pain.

        3. Epi – I am reminded of a wrestler in the 60’s who’s stick was similar to that. “I was so poor I had holes in my aligator shoes!”

          1. Yeah, I actually went to Wasabi Bistro the week before, too. But I don’t have alligator shoes. Maybe I should get some.

    2. You are right, I think, but as has been pointed out by others this has a poor record of resulting in more freedom and less government.

      I wish I could buy a dairy farm in upstate NY.

      1. You really don’t want to live in upstate NY. You’d be much happier in Vermont or New Hampshire.

        1. Why do you hate Utica?

          1. You had better be kidding.

          2. Well I’m from Utica and I’ve never heard the phrase “steamed hams.”

            No, no, not in Utica. That’s an Albany expression.

        2. Well upstate NY has a brutal winter that’s certain, and a very short summer.

          Vermont? That communist state can pound sand. NH maybe but is there anything away from the population center that can provide an income?

          Maybe a potatoe farm in Maine…I love potatoes.

          1. Dude, NY is far more governmentally oppressive than Vermont. And Maine is a great place to vacation but you don’t want to live there either.

            As for income, I thought you were buying a dairy farm?

            1. In Vermont, the 14 year old tarran was asked if he had a rifle yet by a salesman in a department store, who then approached my parents about selling them a starter rifle.

              They also did nasty things to federal agents hunting escaped slaves.

              Whatever you may say about VT they aren’t full commie… yet.

            2. Well, I was thinking more along the lines of North of the Adirondacks, thinking that the morons in Albany focus their attention downstate.

              Tarran is making a case for Vermont that I should consider.

              1. Let me give you one example: in NY, if you want a pistol, you have to get a permit and then register every single pistol before you can even pick them up after purchasing. Also, you have to get an unrestricted pistol license, which is on the discretion of the local judge, to carry concealed. Some upstate judges are very generous with those, but still.

                In Vermont, there are no pistol permits required whatsoever, not even for carrying concealed. And you can get a New Hampshire permit if you want one to carry there.

  7. People in Greece and Spain are protesting any and all cuts to spending or spending growth as their countries circle the drain. Tell me again how we’re going to explain fiscal reality to people and get them to understand.

    1. Just restructure government to be generically more limited, stuffing it back, more or less, into its constitutional limits. After that’s done, then note that government can no longer do certain things.

      1. After that’s done, then note that government can no longer do certain things.




      2. That didn’t work so well the last time we tried it.

  8. America has not had the pleasure of free markets for at least 100 years (since the construction of the private Federal Reserve, a collusion between banking and government interests). No one alive today has ever seen an actual American “free market” beyond community barter, so to blame free markets for our modern failings is rather thoughtless. To summarize, the U.S. economy is nothing like what the founders envisioned and fought for.


    1. But blaming free markets for our modern failings is convenient to liberals, so it will continue.

  9. Not to worry. Rand Paul will have more help in the Senate next year with Ted Cruz from Texas.

    Slowly, but surely we may be heading for a tipping point. Plus Europe will be an ongoing disaster for the foreseeable future and will be a warning to us I hope.

    Romney isn’t going to solve the problem of the economic blue model in his four years. It’s going to have to happen over a number of years. It’s going to be like building a medieval cathedral; some of us are going to die before it’s finished.

  10. Honestly, Romney looks like he’ll be GWB Lite, and that’s about as good as it gets, apparently. What a fucking mess.

    1. If I wanted GWB Lite, I would have voted for Obama.

  11. Spending will not be cut to the point where we get a balanced budget.

    The government will not/cannot default on its debt, and must continue to issue more and more new debt.

    The only possible source of the money to prevent default, buy new debt, and allow government to keep spending is the Fed. (And, since the same dynamic is also true in Europe and elsewhere, in many other countries.)

    That’s what QE is about. Not stimulating the economy, not even propping up the stock market (although they don’t mind if that happens). Its about bailing out (1) banks and (2) governments.

    QE will continue, infinitely. Count on it. The only real question is, what happens when QE here and in Europe (and who knows where else) has destroyed the existing currencies?

    1. Technically, isn’t issuing a larger pile of debt and paying it off with printed money a default in kind, if not in deed? Isn’t the end result the same…or actually even worse?

    2. There are only three ways to get out from under our debt: massively increase taxes; default on the debt; low to moderate inflation. Thus I expect low to moderate inflation to continue in the foreseeable future.

      p.s. Of course QEeasing has nothing to do with inflation, or even with stimulus. If inflation is like turning the throttle up on an engine, and stimulus is like priming its carburetor, then QE is like sticking the gas nozzle into the radiator and filling it up.

  12. We know we’re headed for a fiscal cliff but at the speed we’re going, there’s going to be nothing but a dark splat on the canyon floor. So just sit back and enjoy the ride, getting as many lulz as you can.

    1. +1 Wile E. Coyote

    2. I am kind of looking forward to the Schadenfreude, when I see the looks on everyone’s face who thought this could not have happened in a trillion years. I say kind of, because I’ll probably be chained these fuckers as we are rolled over the cliff by reality/skynet.

      1. “There’s no way the housing market can crash in a trillion years! No one has ever lost money in real estate ever!” – overheard in a Las Vegas real estate office

    3. Sure, but I don’t think people understand which fiscal cliff we’re heading for.

      Its not the one where governments make deep cuts in spending, raise taxes, set off a deep recession. Because that one ain’t gonna happen, nuh-uh, no way. Because that would require a political class (here or anywhere) with guts and vision.

      No, the fiscal cliff is the one we go over when the one or more currencies fail due to unlimited QE printing, taking down the financial system and governments with them.

      1. oh, I know it’s going to be bad. But the few who do care have little say in the matter – best we can do is have our escape hatches in place.

      2. It’s amazing that less then a decade after what happened in Zimbabwe, the solons in the U.S. and Europe are going the same route.

    4. So, Slim Pickens riding a bomb. I can dig it…

  13. I am out collecting gems of liberal butthurt today.

    Here’s a good one:

    Romney’s style is to say the same lie over and over, hoping to eventually be believed (a skill he says he learned from his sons). Clearly, Obama has not been confronted by this situation before, and wrongly assumed that fact and reason would prevail.

    1. Man, Obama must have really crashed and burned last night…

      1. It was fucking epic.

      2. He did, Tarran, oh boy did he. It was glorious.

    2. The utter projection and self-delusion is almost astounding, except for they do this constantly so it’s no surprise.

      1. I believe it is more deliberate than you think. As per Akoff’s blue book, they accuse the opposition of what they themselves are doing.

        In Randian’s gem above, the roles are exactly reversed. I dont think it is self-delusion, I think it is a deliberate tactic.

    3. “Clearly, Obama has not been confronted by this situation before, and wrongly assumed that fact and reason would prevail.”

      Correction: Obama figured he was the only one shoe could get away with it.
      Petard, Mittens? Here you go…

    4. I watched the debate replay on youtube and find that this exactly opposite from the truth. Obama continually mischaracterized Romney’s positions, attempting to repeat his version of what Romney said as if it were the truth. Romney, to his credit, did a good job of calling Obama out on this and arefully restating his actual positions. It made Obama look even more desperate. Maybe there’s something to Obama’s self criticism that his biggest problem is not being able to control the narrative.

    5. Moar!:

      But did you see Obama writing all those notes? You just know he’s going to come back for round 2 with a long list of “here’s what the man said” moments, putting Romney in the position of having to defend those positions. Obama even set the groundwork for that kind of strategy by pointing out Romney’s lack of specifics in his so-called “proposals”.

      Strategically, I believe Obama took the high road tonight; whereas Romney, though clearly having done his homework, nevertheless came across as the bully we all know him to be

      My hope is that Obama was willing to lose this debate in real time in order to win it tomorrow by demonstrating cases of Romney contradictions

      1. Jesus fucking Christ…how do these people operate in the real world?

        1. Jesus fucking Christ…how do these people operate in the real world public schoosl in which they teach?

      2. We have to lose the debate in order to win the debates.

        1. 3D Chess Master.

      3. Here is what I don’t understand. How did liberals convince themselves Romney was Joe Biden? The guy may be a weak kneed RINO from Massachusetts but he ran a hedge fun, was governor of a state and has been running for President for the last six years. He is not stupid and he sure as hell knows how to do well in a political debate. And Obama had a tough row to hoe anyway because his record is so bad.

        Did they really think Romney was just going to go up there and pick his nose or just roll over?

        1. John, you answered your own question earlier: no one is smarter than the High Priest of Liberalism. If the Lightworker was out-debated, it must be someone else’s fault. The Lightworker is infallible.

        2. I think there are two things here. One is the philosophy of Tony the other day on the academia discrimination thread: if you were smart, you’d be a D, so it’s absurd to think any R could outdebate Obama.

          The other is Mittens’ handicap as a robot. Honestly, I have never seen him appear so human as he did last night (and this is what some of the people on those dopey undecided voter panels CNN had one said too). I did think that if the debate stuck to policy stuff, especially tax policy stuff, Romney would have an edge because he would be a better, snappier salesman–but I wasn’t sure how much of an edge, because I wasn’t sure how good his subroutines were. I don’t think any liberals expected him to all of a sudden be a person, who knew things and was good at things. It’s really not something we’ve seen a ton of before–and now I want to know why, because clearly he is good at something.

          1. Nicole,

            I have always thought he was a good speaker. I don’t trust him. But I always found the robot talk to be funny but not really true.

            1. Those awkward moments when he would sing on the campaign trail? The “I live for laughter” line? There is definitely some social awkwardness.

              1. If there wasn’t, he wouldn’t be a politician. They are all geeks.

      4. I thought he was just doodling hot ladies with swords and skimpy Viking bikinis.

        1. I know that’s what I would have done.

        2. I wonder if he had a Treehorn Enterprises notepad.

        3. He is still working for my vote? Oh, Obama, that is just pathetic.

        4. He could have just downloaded that Skyrim mod.

      5. You don’t really need to take notes during the debate if the whole thing’s recorded….

        1. Look, let the idiot have his delusions. Do you want him shooting up his office when the existential despair sets in?

      6. Romney, though clearly having done his homework, nevertheless came across as the bully we all know him to be

        Translation: WAAAHHHHH!!!!!! That meen old Rethuglican is a big meanie!!!!1 He hurtsez my wittle feewings!!!!! WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

        “Mmmm, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Yummy, you guys!”

      7. He was taking notes right then. Because there is no way he’ll be bothered to watch the replay. Not when there is NFL three nighta a week.

    6. Almost as good as the one from HP I posted last night where someone said that privatization was Romney’s solution to everything and that the problem with that is greedy businessmen will screw over the people

      1. Don’t forget the liberals on Slate

        I thought Jim Leher allowed Mitt to completely overrun him during the entire debate and because President Obama held back and let Mitt run his mouth, it appeared Obama was off. I think someone gave Mitt some Honey Boo Boo Juice b/c he seemed wired and like a pre-programed robot not one could find the off button.

      2. Or this gem

        I guess no can see what is happening. Obama is allowing Rom to spill his guts. They are taking in everything he is saying, they are going back to study his words from what he has said in the past and OB is going in for the kill by the 3rd debate. That is what attorneys do, they allow you to hang yourself that is why he did not fight much during the first debate. Now Biden is going to lay into Ryan, just watch. There is strategy to this, it’s like a football game, you study your opponent then you go for the bleeder. A business man can not outdo any attorney and you gotta give OB credit because this man has overcome obstacles and he is for the people and that is where his passion lay. He would do anything to kill the American dream, so if he is using Bill Clintons Plan and we came out on top with a surplus then why would it not work now? Who do you OB is getting advice from because Clinton was a smart man. It took 8 yrs for a Republican to get us here, it will take 8 plus more for a Dem to get us out.

        1. Biden is going to lay into Ryan


          1. How delusional do you have to be to think Joe Biden is going to save you?

            1. These guys think that Obama is Hannibal in the battle of Cannae.

              Obama has fucked up everything he touched. All of his election victories have been on the back of scandals that take down his opponents.

              He’s Varro, not Hannibal.

        2. More more more! I love these tears:

          The Obama camp gamed this out. They knew that Romney would be doing something of a “Don’t throw me in the briar patch…” in order to draw Obama into a tussle.
          The strategy was that Obama would not step down to Romney’s level and get in a tussle on the lying.
          So, after the debate starts to fade, what you have is Romney having done a lot more blatant lying, on camera, and Obama didn’t soil himself with Romney’s stench.

          Maybe Obama’s game was off, but I can see a long term strategy behind this as well, so it’s not all bad.

          Rather than drawing out a few lies by countering, Obama, on purpose or not, gave Romney opportunity to talk more, and dig the hole deeper.

          1. Politics aside, since when is lying not a winning political strategy? I think I would be terrified if I knew my political opponent was out lying me.

            1. ++meta

          2. Huh? I’m having trouble figureing out who exactly is being Racist Brer Rabbit in the above. If I didn’t know that, by definition, it has to be Romney, I’d have real problems with the interpretation.

          3. “Don’t throw me in the briar patch…”


        3. I’m actually having trouble processing the delusion here. It’s absolutely astounding. And they all echo-chamber reinforce each other’s abject stupidity. It’s like a positive feedback loop of retardation.

          This is beyond belief. It’s actually awesomely hilarious and incredibly frightening at the same time. These people walk among us, dude.

          1. This is why cults of personality are a bitch. When an ordinary politician loses an election, his supporters can blame it on him being a loser. When the Dems lost in 04 or the Republicans in 2008, they both just wrote off the loss to Kerry and McCain respectively being loser candidates.

            But when you invest your entire sense of personal self worth in being a supporter of this particular politician, losing is a much more personal and devastating event.

          2. Recall these are the same people that concluded that Obama deliberately pushed for the NDAA so that the courts would find it unconstitutional and thus save us all from indefinite detention. Chess not checkers and all that.

            Occam’s Razor is foreign to these people.

          3. Watching last night, I was a little worried that my reaction would not be the same as anyone else’s, and when I checked Twitter and found that the liberal types I follow were all like, “OMG, what is happening, I’m not sure I can keep watching”–within half an hour of the debate starting–well, that was a nice moment.

          4. That would be a great name for a Twitter collection site: TheyWalkAmongstUs.com

        4. A business man can not outdo any attorney

          If Obama were an attorney, America should sue him for malpractice.

          1. A business man can not outdo any attorney

            I think we now know why Obama did the unprecedented action of voluntarily turning over his license to practice.

        5. He would do anything to kill the American dream

          Truer words were never spoken.

      3. privatization was Romney’s solution to everything and that the problem with that is greedy businessmen will screw over the people

        Well, duh!
        Government doesn’t waste money on profits. And that’s all profits are: waste.
        Put greedy businessmen in charge of anything provided by government and it will instantly cost more as precious funds are diverted into profits.

        Then there is a moral issue where certain things should not be profited from, for example health care.
        It is a moral outrage that insurance companies profit from denying care to dying people.
        It is preferable that the government be the denier of health care, because at least it will not be done because of a selfish profit motive.

        The idea that businesses, with their profit motive, will root out inefficiencies and drive costs down simply does not compute.

        That requires getting over the initial emotional reaction to “profits”.

    7. Obama did crash a burn, but on the other hand Romney did lie over and over as well. The numbers in his tax plan clearly don’t add, and I was kinda insulted by his implication that he could just throw stuff like that out there and I would be too stupid to notice.

      1. Whenever you want to knock off the Obama apologetics, would you please let us know? I have yet to hear one demonstrated “lie”, despite the constant assurances they exist.

        1. You can’t cut taxes trillions of dollars, increase spending trillions of dollars, and reduce the deficit. Romney knows his plan is complete bullshit, but thinks we’re all to stupid to figure it out. Just because Obama’s plan is also bullshit doesn’t change that.

      2. Stormy Dragon| 10.4.12 @ 3:13PM |#
        ‘Obama did crash a burn, but on the other hand LOOK OVER THERE!’

        Not really a good try.

    8. Obama has not been confronted by this situation before, and wrongly assumed that fact and reason would prevail.

      MWUHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Fact and reason, that’s a good one! Ohh, he’s not actually kidding… wow, the delusion is strong with this one.

  14. Sort of OT:
    Obama now claims that wasn’t the real Mittens last night:
    “”When I got onto the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” he said.”
    Unfortunately, it was the real Obama.

    1. Obama is a pussy.

      1. That is really pathetic. But what is he supposed to say? Honestly, how would you run Obama’s campaign any differently? I mean if you couldn’t change the way he governs, how else would you campaign other than as he has? You can only put so much lipstick on a pig.

        1. “lipstick on a pig”

          C’mon, John. There’s no reason to bring Michelle Obama into this discussion.

          1. C’mon! That’s rude! Pigs and wookiees look nothing alike!

        2. Honestly, how would you run Obama’s campaign any differently?

          I’d quit to avoid the shame…

          1. That is not an option. Do you know what Michelle would do to his skinny ass if he told her she wasn’t going to be able to fly on Air Force One anymore?

            1. And with divorce laws being what they are, there is no way he wants to be on the hook for 60% of $1.4 billion a year to maintain her “expected quality of lifestyle.”

            2. “That’s ’cause droids don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets when they lose.”

              1. Droids don’t rip people’s arms out of their sockets when you tell them they have to start flying commercial.

                1. …or that they can’t block traffic on 5th avenue so that they can go on a “date”.

      2. “Obama is a pussy.”

        Yes, and I am pretty sure a fairy. And definitely the most punchable man in America.

  15. Bloomberg just ran a clip of the Campaigner-in-Chief from some event today which was equivalent to that kid who just got walloped on the playground telling somebody who wasn’t there, “You shoulda seen me mop the floor with him.”

    1. It is just a flesh wound.

    2. More and more the TEAMs act like children, with increasingly immature and pathetic behavior, excuses, rationales, and speech. It’s fucking embarrassing, and they couldn’t care or notice less.

  16. http://www.slate.com/blogs/beh…..orld_.html

    Way cool photos.

    1. loads way too slow

      1. Worth the wait.

        1. I’d rather view a fractal zoom.

          1. That would be very cool when combined with a good hallucinogenic.

  17. saw this on Instapundit:

    Elizabeth Warren’s white great grandfather shot an Indian


    1. I love the old headline “Indian crazed with drink attacks boy”.

      1. definitely a less PC world back then.

        1. That doesn’t even sound slightly offensive.

          1. these days it would be:

            “Native American allegedly under the influence physically assaults boy who probably provoked him.”

            1. Sadly, you’re right. Bring back “crazed with drink.”

              1. DWCWD will lose you your license for sure.

      2. Was it a black man attacked?

      3. “…the white man was a good shot and the bullet from his Winchester passed through the body of Yaholar”

        Winchesters were fired. Bodies were pierced. Nothing else happened.

    2. You can’t make this shit up

  18. Romney, though clearly having done his homework, nevertheless came across as the bully we all know him to be


    Women, minorities hardest hit.

    1. Anyone recall the winter of 2005? Newly re-elected President Bush decides to push for some mild Social Security reform. Democrats scream and demagogue. Republicans in Congress flee in all directions and nothing happened.

      No way in hell are Romney or Ryan going to talk about this in anything other than vagaries. We’ll see what happens if the Republicans win big next month.

  19. Is the next debate supposed to be about foreign policy? If so, I would advise not making Obama mentioning he got Bin Ladin a drinking game if you don’t want to end up in the emergency room.

    1. Obama should step on stage, say “I got Bin Laden”, drop the mike and leave.

      1. If hesays any more than that he’ll stumble worse than he did last night.

      2. Correct response (which Mittens will not give): “and all it took was the blood of a couple hundred brown kids. You gonna stop now?”

    2. If Mittens actually worked up the gall to question Obama about the $60 billion arms deal between the US and Saudi Arabia brokered by Obama, the continuation of indefinite detention, or the categorization of males near the target of drone strikes as “terrorists”, I might very well have to vote for him.

  20. I would point out that actual military cuts are closer to 1 trillion if you include an already programmed 500 billion cut not part of sequestration (also not part of end of war/overseas contingencies operation savings which make the cuts even larger). So, the military which makes up 20% of the budget but will take 66% of cuts over the next ten years. That’s not to argue against cuts but to point out the President’s priorities.

    1. I would point out that actual military cuts are closer to 1 trillion if you include an already programmed 500 billion cut not part of sequestration

      What’s the budget now?

      What’s the budget supposed to be each of the next 10 years (adjusted for inflation to current dollars)?

      The difference between those two numbers is the “actual military cut”.

      I’d be curious to know the answer to this. Who knows? Maybe the military budget is going to be cut, but no way is it going to cut $1TT over the next 10 years.

      1. FY12 Base Defense Budget (not including overseas contingency operations) was ~$550B. http://www.csbaonline.org/publ…..se-budget/ POTUS FY13 budget $500B and sequestration FY13 budget $450B. http://www.brookings.edu/resea…..ts-ohanlon

  21. Obama is allowing Rom to spill his guts. They are taking in everything he is saying, they are going back to study his words from what he has said in the past and OB is going in for the kill by the 3rd debate.

    The “Wile E Coyote, SUPERGENIUS!” gambit.

    It all makes sense, now.

    1. They have called in specialists from the ACME school of political debate.

    2. Yeah. Attempting to refuted Romney’s points from THE PREVIOUS DEBATE is going to lead to less PWNage, especially when each debate is on a different topic.

      O: “I’d like to talk about Gov. Romney’s statement on Medicare…”

      R: “Mr. President, that was at the last debate. We’ve already established your approach to domestic policy, but this debate is on Foreign policy. Shall we discuss your record on the topic at hand?

    3. They are taking in everything he is saying, they are going back to study his words from what he has said in the past and OB is going in for the kill by the 3rd debate.

      I’m not so sure its a good idea to model your debate strategy after a Doritos commercial.


  22. Its been said that only fifteen minutes of the debate was suppose to be focused on the economy. Smart move on Romney’s to make it all about the economy and avoid any reference to the Kultur War. It had to be tempting, there is a lot juicy things to grab from Obama’s craptastic life and belief system to exploit but for every one of us who scoffs at ‘vote like your lady parts depend on it’ there is a stupid white girl in a liberal arts dorm who believes it.

    1. Fifteen minutes out of a total of ninety for this debate and two-seventy for all three. On the economy. The number one domestic policy question (and possibly very close 2nd on foreign policy). 15/90=0.167. 17% devoted to the most important issue.

  23. The thing is, before we can start worrying about the deficit we need to figure out how to create jobs. Who cares if we save 500 million in the fiscal budget if we still have 8% unemployment? Economist and nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman suggests that we worry about jobs, because that’s what will make the economy work for us again. Obama mentioned the prosperity of the Clinton era- a time in which unemployment was remarkably low. We need to create more jobs and more industries in order to climb out of the deficit hole that we are currently in.


      1. You doubt Bea’s sincerity? Come on, what kind of shit head changes their name so someone who does not normally address trolls responds to them?

        Well who ever went through all the trouble of changing their names gets this one reaction from me.

        1. And what was this other name?

    1. You’re new here, huh? For each job created by stimulus around 600,000 dollars were spent. That comes to the salaries of around 15 average workers. IOW, it cost jobs to create those jobs. Far more lost than were created. To understand economics you have to understand opportunity cost, and Krugman has yet to demonstrate he understands the full meaning of the concept. The Keynesian understanding he professes as his own is based upon a calculus error, and the error shows up in every study Keynesians like Alice Revlin have ever published. The previous high performance level of an economy is not the origin point of current measurement. Simple calculus and yet they are laughably ignorant of it.

    2. Who cares if we save 500 million in the fiscal budget if we still have 8% unemployment?

      Umm, me?

    3. Economist and nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman…

      Is that supposed to impress me? So he got a Nobel prize years ago, he’s been nothing but a run of the mill TEAM BLUE hack ever since.


    4. “Obama mentioned the prosperity of the Clinton era- a time in which unemployment was remarkably low.”

      And he conveniently forgot to mention that the deficit was small at that time.
      There might be a connection, here.

  24. You’re no fun, db.

    Not even a little?

    How about just the Krugabe part?

    1. If this person were open to new ideas and willing to be educated, sure. But to show up here amd post that as one’s first (?) post? It smacks of paid or volunteer trolling. It’s like they got a list of web sites to post to and some talking points and got told “go!”

  25. So the supposedly more fiscally conservative Romney is the one who wants to spend even MOAR on war and old people? And Obama thinks borrowing a trillion a year forever, until the interest rates go up and make it two trillion, is okay?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.