1st Presidential Debate thoughts...

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Mitt Romney wants to fire Big Bird. He’s got a plan, mostly secret, to restore America to fiscal sanity. But first, he wants to cut taxes by 20 percent. Ultimately, that will cost $5 trillion. At the same time, he wants to add things to the defense budget. And none of this will add a penny to the debt.

A third grader could tell you that his numbers don’t add up. Go ahead, ask a third grader. Romney knows it doesn’t add up, so he’s not specific. Oh, except for Big Bird — no more subsidies for PBS, you mono-toned moochers. That’s 0.00014 percent of the budget.

(That's about enough to run the Government for about 1 hour.)

So, $5 Trillion in tax-cuts; $2 Trillion more for defense, that the DoD doesn't want.... And it's going to be paid for by firing Big Bird...

You can't make this stuff up...

Once again, LJ's lack of economic knowledge is revealed. These budget items add up. I listen to NPR every day a couple times a day and I think it is time for public broadcasting to pay for itself. PBS? It has outlived its usefulness. US taxpayers don't need to be paying for antique appraisal shows or painting demonstrations from guys with bad hair.

Big Bird is so gay, let kids watch the hunting channels where they can actually learn something.

Economics for Obama,,, out back smoking doobies.

There's nothing wrong with my "economic knowledge"... The total budget for PBS is less than the government spends in 1 hour...

Deal with it. I don't give a flying-flip if you personally don't think it's worth it. I think they can cut the g*d-damn Military Budget by 50%, too.

More people want to cut NPR & PBS than want to cut the military. Public broadcasting? Subsidizing entertainment for rich liberals. Public corporate welfare.

More people wanted slavery than didn't.... I don't care about that either.

Public corporate welfare?...No, that's more like the $4 BILLION that we give away each year to the oil companies that don't need it. Subsidizing rich conservatives.

It would be more accurate to say they are subsidizing educational children's television for low income families, but I understand that you have to put a right wing spin on it Fred.

archer wrote: It would be more accurate to say they are subsidizing educational children's television for low income families, but I understand that you have to put a right wing spin on it Fred.

Duplicating spending? We already have the Feds subsidizing public school systems.

What does public school funding have to do with educational TV programs for young children? Those programs benefit families who cannot afford the preschool and early childhood courses that wealthier families send their kids to. Apples and oranges my friend,

The right wing whacks on here don't get that Romney did exactly what you all feared during the primaries.He swung to the middle. Where is the Tea Party outrage? He threw you bumkins under the bus to win.
What a bunch of kool aid drinking fools.
Have fun, I am out.

drop out wrote: The right wing whacks on here don't get that Romney did exactly what you all feared during the primaries.He swung to the middle. Where is the Tea Party outrage? He threw you bumkins under the bus to win.
What a bunch of kool aid drinking fools.
Have fun, I am out.

For the Left who thinks the GOP is run by the ultra-right, why was Mitt chosen over TEA Party favorites like Michelle Bachman and Santorum? Why was a Mormon who had a liberal record running Massachussets chosen over Newt Gingrich who created the first budget surplus in decades?