Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!

[Kirkland Laing]

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

If Romney was actually advocating strong conservative policies, the kind he was advocating back during the primaries, he'd be losing by ten points plus.

[Kirkland Laing]

Back to Romney's plan.

Romney's plan is the top five things that focus groups tell the pollsters they want. Cheap gas, jobs, cut the deficit and so on. That's it. And it's just five bullet points, there's no actual plan past the bullet points. On even casual examination the "plan" falls apart but it doesn't even get that from the media. The entire campaign on both sides is operating at fifth grade level, you didn't build that, Benghazi shows Obama is soft on terror and so on. The real issues never get discussed because neither side wants to address them.

The real issues are the massive debt overhang, the median wage not having gone up since Reagan and all the benefits of economic growth going to top earners and corporations. Without these issues being reversed America's economy isn't going to do very well in the long term.

Obama's real plan is to continue the system we have whereby US labour rates are being arbitraged down to Asian labour rates (currently a dollar a day to as much as a dollar an hour for unskilled labour, a couple of dollars an hour for skilled labour and six dollars and change an hour for college graduates) on an ongoing basis and US corporate profits are maximised while government programmes that hold America's middle class together, Medicare, social security etc have large cuts made to them.

Romney's real plan is to turn America into a giant Foxconn dormitory and take an axe to Medicare and social security, basically handing them over to the private sector. An express train to the third world in other words while Obama's train runs a lot slower and makes lots of stops along the way.

[VictorCharlie]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

[El Kabong]

If Romney was actually advocating strong conservative policies, the kind he was advocating back during the primaries, he'd be losing by ten points plus.

Yeah, Obama tells the truth 100% of the time and never varies...just like on Libya it was a "Terrorist Attack" from day one and NEVER changed....never changed.....it simply never changed. It wasn't because of a mean video against Islam or whatever, it wasn't a spontaneous attack or anything, it was terrorism right





And what does Barry have planned for his second term? Shouldn't we be hearing about that by now Or has this term been so strong he doesn't have to do anything but shout down Romney

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

[Kirkland Laing]

If Romney was actually advocating strong conservative policies, the kind he was advocating back during the primaries, he'd be losing by ten points plus.

Yeah, Obama tells the truth 100% of the time and never varies...just like on Libya it was a "Terrorist Attack" from day one and NEVER changed....never changed.....it simply never changed. It wasn't because of a mean video against Islam or whatever, it wasn't a spontaneous attack or anything, it was terrorism right





And what does Barry have planned for his second term? Shouldn't we be hearing about that by now Or has this term been so strong he doesn't have to do anything but shout down Romney

The Libya thing is the perfect example of the fifth grade level of the election campaigns. It's really not important at all. There was an attack on a consulate, some people got killed, there was a confused response by the government in its public announcements about the attack in the days after it happened. So fucking what? It's not really important in the great scheme of things, is it?

And I already told you what Obama and Romney have planned for America. You can either take the slow train or the express train to Third World Central and you appear desperate to get a ticket on the express.

[El Kabong]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

And I actually missed reading the last sentence. If Ron Paul was the GOP niminee Obama would win 48 states. These people are absolute nutjobs, completely unelectable. Extreme conservative platforms aren't ever going to win an election and that's why Romney is currently flip flopping on his primary-era policies and tacking to the centre. If he didn't he'd be unelectable too.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

That's because of outsourcing and offshoring and various other methods of arbitraging graduate labour rates down to Asian levels.

[El Kabong]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

That's because of outsourcing and offshoring and various other methods of arbitraging graduate labour rates down to Asian levels.

....Now maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you need a college education to work for Dell's customer service phone line.

But hey, all these graduates are getting offered great jobs right? I mean I personally know 2 guys I went to high school with who are big in the whole Occupy Wall Street deal, smart guys one is even IVY LEAGUE educated and yet they are effectively unemployed. I wonder why that is, and then I've had talks with them and their senses of entitlement and general bellicose nature when it comes to ANY Liberal talking point issue gives me a decent idea of why these folks aren't getting jobs.

The problem once again is a culture of entitlement and the fact that kids are going to school and so much focus is put on school and grades that outside of that life doesn't exist. These people want to get paid to go to school....so cutting the cord (so to speak) would benefit everyone. You can learn on your own time, eventually you have to PRODUCE and these kids just aren't interested in being productive. It's a sad simple fact.

[El Kabong]

The Libya thing is the perfect example of the fifth grade level of the election campaigns. It's really not important at all. There was an attack on a consulate, some people got killed, there was a confused response by the government in its public announcements about the attack in the days after it happened. So fucking what? It's not really important in the great scheme of things, is it?

And I already told you what Obama and Romney have planned for America. You can either take the slow train or the express train to Third World Central and you appear desperate to get a ticket on the express.

When you're "in charge" you MAY want to understand what the fuck is going on or at least seem like you know. You also want to swiftly move to remedy the issues....otherwise you're not a good leader now are you?

Yes of course, you know ALL Kirkland why do we even ask questions anymore we've got you here to berate us with your version of the truth which is by no means skewed to one side or the other. Again if we're going to end up in the same place anyway why are you so adamant about electing Obama? If choice A gets us to a bad place and choice B gets us there quicker then what is the difference? Just the amount of time Well fucking hell if that's it and there's 0 reversing the effects until we've hit rock bottom then fucking do it quick and get it over with.....oh but I suppose there's a smart ass reply to that as well, I eagerly await it.

[VictorCharlie]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

Kirk, not too long ago a kid could pay his way through a state college. It wouldn't be easy and they would have to work their ass off both in the class and in their job but it could be done. It was somewhat of the norm at Texas A&M (my Alma Mater) in the 80s due to it having a big agriculture program and lots of farm kids attending. Even in 1997 when I started college I was able to pay a good portion of my tuition and living expenses from working construction all summer. This is just not possible today. Like everything that is highly subsidized the price far outpaces inflation. Remove the subsidy and the market will correct its self. Honestly it will cause some initial ass pain but the end result will be cheaper education and some much needed reform of higher learning.

I think you are seriously off the mark on what appeals to the American voting public. A candidate like Johnson or Paul would crush the President. Both are better on the budget/taxes/debt/economy than the President, both are not afraid to say we need a less interventionist foreign policy, both at more socially liberal than the President on issues like immigration, war on drugs and civil liberties. Both are honest and principled. It just isn't close. The GOP would vote for them b/c they hate the President and the large amounts of democrats dissatisfied with Obama's continuation of the Bush administration would break ranks. Johnson particularly has a tremendously more impressive record both in the private and public sector.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

....now this isn't my argument but I'm just going to say that the problem isn't so much with the "subsidising of higher education" as it is with the whole "college costs a fuck ton more than it used to and it isn't giving graduates the bang for the buck"

That's because of outsourcing and offshoring and various other methods of arbitraging graduate labour rates down to Asian levels.

....Now maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you need a college education to work for Dell's customer service phone line.

But hey, all these graduates are getting offered great jobs right? I mean I personally know 2 guys I went to high school with who are big in the whole Occupy Wall Street deal, smart guys one is even IVY LEAGUE educated and yet they are effectively unemployed. I wonder why that is, and then I've had talks with them and their senses of entitlement and general bellicose nature when it comes to ANY Liberal talking point issue gives me a decent idea of why these folks aren't getting jobs.

The problem once again is a culture of entitlement and the fact that kids are going to school and so much focus is put on school and grades that outside of that life doesn't exist. These people want to get paid to go to school....so cutting the cord (so to speak) would benefit everyone. You can learn on your own time, eventually you have to PRODUCE and these kids just aren't interested in being productive. It's a sad simple fact.

Exactly. There are Ivy League guys with good degrees who can't get a job now. You're making my point for me.

[Kirkland Laing]

The Libya thing is the perfect example of the fifth grade level of the election campaigns. It's really not important at all. There was an attack on a consulate, some people got killed, there was a confused response by the government in its public announcements about the attack in the days after it happened. So fucking what? It's not really important in the great scheme of things, is it?

And I already told you what Obama and Romney have planned for America. You can either take the slow train or the express train to Third World Central and you appear desperate to get a ticket on the express.

When you're "in charge" you MAY want to understand what the fuck is going on or at least seem like you know. You also want to swiftly move to remedy the issues....otherwise you're not a good leader now are you?

Yes of course, you know ALL Kirkland why do we even ask questions anymore we've got you here to berate us with your version of the truth which is by no means skewed to one side or the other. Again if we're going to end up in the same place anyway why are you so adamant about electing Obama? If choice A gets us to a bad place and choice B gets us there quicker then what is the difference? Just the amount of time Well fucking hell if that's it and there's 0 reversing the effects until we've hit rock bottom then fucking do it quick and get it over with.....oh but I suppose there's a smart ass reply to that as well, I eagerly await it.

Like I said. There was an attack on a consulte. Some people got killed. There was a confused response by the government for a few days. The government isn't ever going to react perfectly to every single situation that occurs, look at the Bush administration for instance. It'll be some time before we again see an administration that incompetent.

Again, I'm not adamant about electing Obama. You keep saying that but it isn't true. I can find entertainment no matter which one wins.

[Kirkland Laing]

The federal government subsidises higher education?

Yes

According to the 2009 Federal budget appendix, p 365, the Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.1

Regarding Romeny being more conservative; Yes if Romney was still campaigning like he was in the primaries I don't think he would be in a dead heat but that has more to do with him as a candidate and less abou the policies. If Paul or Johson were the GOP candidate they would be mopping the floor with the President on every single issue.

OK, so the money the feds spend subsidising education is mainly to help people who otherwise couldn't afford it get an education. If they took that money away how would that improve access to education?

Kirk, not too long ago a kid could pay his way through a state college. It wouldn't be easy and they would have to work their ass off both in the class and in their job but it could be done. It was somewhat of the norm at Texas A&M (my Alma Mater) in the 80s due to it having a big agriculture program and lots of farm kids attending. Even in 1997 when I started college I was able to pay a good portion of my tuition and living expenses from working construction all summer. This is just not possible today. Like everything that is highly subsidized the price far outpaces inflation. Remove the subsidy and the market will correct its self. Honestly it will cause some initial ass pain but the end result will be cheaper education and some much needed reform of higher learning.

I think you are seriously off the mark on what appeals to the American voting public. A candidate like Johnson or Paul would crush the President. Both are better on the budget/taxes/debt/economy than the President, both are not afraid to say we need a less interventionist foreign policy, both at more socially liberal than the President on issues like immigration, war on drugs and civil liberties. Both are honest and principled. It just isn't close. The GOP would vote for them b/c they hate the President and the large amounts of democrats dissatisfied with Obama's continuation of the Bush administration would break ranks. Johnson particularly has a tremendously more impressive record both in the private and public sector.

There isn't any subsidy mate. Look, from the Cato Foundation, so it must be true :

The Department of Education spends about $30 billion a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of that funding goes toward student aid programs, with the balance going toward grants to educational institutions. In 2008, grants to institutions cost $2.3 billion and aid programs cost $27.6 billion, which included $17.4 billion for student grants, $9.6 billion for student loans, and $0.6 billion for administration.

Higher Education Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

So other than money to students to help them afford education the feds pay $2.3 billion, or less than one percent of all higher education spending, to "educational institutions" which I'm guessing are community colleges and similar to keep them going and providing the cheapest college eduction you can get. So there is no fucking subsidy unless you're claiming that less than one percent government money somehow distorts the market.

Look, Ron Paul was in the GOP primaries. Like the other candidates he was appealing to GOP primary voters who are a distinct subset of GOP voters. They're the kind of people who show up to rallies and phonebanks during election campaigns' knock on doors for candidates etc etc. They're much more conservative than GOP voters as a whole. They knew Romney was the most electable candidate but still didn't like him because he isn't seen as a real conservative. They looked at every other candidate and every one of them briefly led in the polls. Firstly Donald "we shall overcomb" Trump took the lead, then it was Michele "Corndog" Bachmann, then it was Newt "three wives, family values" Gingrich, then it was Herman "you want a job, don't you?" Cain. Even Rick "Frothy" Santorum got a last desperate look as literally the last man standing against Romney and even he briefly led in the polls. Actually I'm going to take this opportunity to post one of my favourite US political photographs, Frothy's concession speech the night the voters booted him out of the Senate :



But even though the GOP voters went through all these guys Ron Paul never got a look in. That's because even to GOP primary voters he's unelectable. Even they don't want to vote for him because they like their social security and Medicare. Even the teabaggers love Medicare although they don't seem to fully grasp how the programme works :




Ron Paul or the other fruit loop as the GOP candidate would leave Obama winning 48 states.

Back to Frothy. Whatever you say about him, and there's a lot you can say about him, you've got to give him and his wife full credit for having taken in that refugee from The Little House On The Prairie.