Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Everybody on Facebook is saying that Biden is mean and that the moderator is being mean to Ryan.

So is Biden winning?

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody on Facebook is saying that Biden is mean and that the moderator is being mean to Ryan.

So is Biden winning?

No...

And I'm actually shocked... he's much better stumpping...

Where's STUMPING JOE?

He's getting better now though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Got one better D...

Old Ryan would look creepy:

Oh gak... that's HILARIOUS D!

Biden's looking good actually, he's not slipped up or gaffed and has slapped Ryan down on some issues. Ryan appears cheesy, he reminds me of the evil frat kid from every 80s teen movie. His 'wrinkle head puppy look' into the camera would only be completed if he was wringing his hands, wearing a pastel sweater and starting the sentences with 'But Dean!'...

It was a better debate than the first one though, although all debates make me feel this way:

 d-usa wrote:
It was a better debate than the first one though, although all debates make me feel this way:

Good point.

I'd say it was a draw...

Someone needs to make "Uncle Joe facts" a meme

 d-usa wrote:

I don't watch debates or political speeches for this very reason. Its much easier to simply look at polling data.

The polls are calling it somewhere between a modest Biden win and a draw, which from what I heard of it this morning sounds about right. Ryan turned up with his own special facts from his own special Republican Land, and Biden took him up on them, but didn't quite nail it. I like Biden, but even when he isn't gaffing he isn't that quick to phrase his arguments.

 generalgrog wrote:
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

Historically, few debates have had meaningfully impacted polling. When they have, they've rarely had a lasting impact, being more like the convention bump and pushing numbers up for a short time before they return to where they were previously.

Time will tell if Romney gets a lasting impact out of the first debate. It's way too early to call that, when we've not even seen a second debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
CEO of Sesame Workshop (which owns Sesame Street) makes $650,000/year salary.

PBS gets something like 1/2 billion dollars annually of federal money.

When all of our taxes are going to materially increase in 3 months, is Big Bird really such a sacred cow that we can't question expenditures?

No, it's a stupid cow. When you have $3.6 billion in expenditure, and you want to talk about how to cut that and you start talking about $450 million, then you're trying to address the issue by talking about 0.01% of the budget.

I mean, if my partner came to me and said 'our household expenditure of $1,000 a month is far too high, we need to make cutbacks' and I started talking about my wife spending an average of 10c a month on cotton wipes, she'd laugh me out of the house. And she'd be right to, because you don't address spending issues by fussing over something that takes up .01% of the budget.

And yet Romney thinks talking about $450 million in PBS is meaningful. And Democrats respond by pretending he doesn't like Big Bird.

The real issue here is that Romney has said nothing substantial on the deficit. He dances around the issue by taking Ryan as VP, but then backs off from his proposal. And when it comes to balancing the budget, he says he'll do it, but doesn't outline anything that'll substantially get there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
The fiscal cliff issue is very real and spending is going to be cut while taxation will be increased. This is going to happen.

Well, the fiscal cliff itself isn't a thing. There's no point that you can suddenly lurch over and find yourself plumetting. It's more a fiscal steep hill, where every point down makes it harder to turn around, and you've been on that steep hill since the Reagan tax cuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
The entire point to the automatic spending cuts trigger that they put in place during the summer was to create a spending cut so draconian that both sides would be forced to meet in the middle and actually figure out a way to get the US balance sheet more balanced.

It's a reflection of how dire the situation can potentially become that policymakers felt it necessary to put that sort of 'big red button' into place.

If left to trigger, we could be looking at 2% econonomic constriction; joblessness spikes, Recession Part Deux.

I think the issue is that cut needs to happen, but they need to be steady, measured change. Drastic cutrs and immediate pull back in spending might cause a system shock in an economy that's already teetering, and move to double dip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lateral movement is not growth. 1% is not growth. We're still in it.

It is growth. Increase in GDP is growth, and when there's growth then you are not in recession.

I get your point that the growth in the US is basically just keeping up with population growth, but you don't make that point by making up your own meanings for words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
WHOA!!! Ryan zinger!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ryan said to Biden: Sometimes the words don't come out of YOUR MOUTH the right way (after BIden's 47% statement)

Why did that get such a big laugh? It was so obviously the pre-packaged line Ryan was gonna use when Biden mentioned Romney's 47%. And is anyone actually pretending Romney just accidentally said 47% will vote Democrat because of the welfare state?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Ah...

Semantics...

Money got shifted...

Problem is, the Medicare benefits to seniors don't change, but the reimbursements to providers will have to change.

It isn't semantics. The money isn't cutting services, it's realising that government is overpaying for some stuff, and planning on paying less for it in future. It's a solid idea, and such a solid idea that Ryan included the same savings in his own budget.

And yet he and Romney keep pretending that the 716 billion is a cut. Well if it's a cut he's making it too according to his own budget.

 sebster wrote:

No, it's a stupid cow. When you have $3.6 billion in expenditure, and you want to talk about how to cut that and you start talking about $450 million, then you're trying to address the issue by talking about 0.01% of the budget.

I mean, if my partner came to me and said 'our household expenditure of $1,000 a month is far too high, we need to make cutbacks' and I started talking about my wife spending an average of 10c a month on cotton wipes, she'd laugh me out of the house. And she'd be right to, because you don't address spending issues by fussing over something that takes up .01% of the budget.

Not one something, no. But if you cut back on those cotton wipes, nix the $20 a week in Starbucks, start clipping coupons, start paying attention to those small ways to save energy and cut down on the electric bill, etc., you can reduce that expenditure.

Or you can sell your car. Most people will try to get a variety of little savings that mean nothing by themselves but add up working for them rather than just axing the biggest-ticket item they have.

We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.

I know a lot of righties think PBS and Foriegn Aid take up huge swathes of the Federal budget, but it just isn't true. Sorry.

 Easy E wrote:
We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.

I know a lot of righties think PBS and Foriegn Aid take up huge swathes of the Federal budget, but it just isn't true. Sorry.

Not at all. IN the great game of the budget EVERYTHING is discretionary. Everything needs to be cut.

When I watched the VP debates, this phrase came to mind

Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.

Biden constantly spoke during Ryan's turn. Biden would look at the camera and speak directly to the American viewers.
Biden was being aggressive and Ryan let him.
Thinking about it more, I think that phrase can also be applied to the Romney/Obama debate as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
We could cut all discretionary spending (including Foreign Aid and Public Broadcasting) and guess what, we still would not make a dent in the Debt. Therefore, this whole PBS talking point is ridiculous talk.

Americans have a few problems when it comes to spending. Both Republicans and Democrats are being so damn partisan right now they wont agree to any of these changes.

First, we have historically low tax rates. If were going to balance the budget, we need to all pay more in taxes. I know its an unpopular thing to say, but its true. You can't balance the budget without income.

Secondly, we need to cut down on our military. We spend more on our military than the rest of would does combined. During the arms race in the 80s, it was understandable -- but today we have no great threats. China is not going to go to war on us because we would stop buying their crap. Aircraft carriers don't stop terrorists, homeland security does. We could cut our military by 50% and still have the greatest military in the world.

Third, Social Security is poorly designed for the modern era. Currently its a ponzi scheme where money from Bob is used to give grandma her check, then excess funds are spent on treasury bills. Instead it should work more like a 401k where initally your investments would be in stocks, and as you got older moved to T-Bills. This would prevent a market collapse wiping out all of "grandmas" savings.
The problem is "how can you still pay grandma while changing Bob's money to a real investment?"

We need to address Medicare/Medicaid and our healthcare costs as a whole. We pay more for healthcare than any other industralized area as a percentage of GPD, yet we don't have better health. We need to investigate this and lower the cost. Lowering health care costs will lower the amount we need to pay for Medicare/Medicaid.

Finally, we need to invest into our future. In a more competitive global economy we need to invest into education and research. College costs are making it prohibitive for average Americans to attend. We have cut funding into research projects like NASA. We need to shift the direction and push forward. Yes, this includes things like Sesame Street. Education should be our #1 priority to ensure Americans can compete in today's global economy.

Polls basically have both tied on substance but Romney ahead on likeability and style.

Who cares about that?

All that matters is the Electoral College. That hasn't changed much, except Florida has gotten a LOT tighter to call. However, Romeny will still have an uphill battle to 270 even if he wins Florida.

That being said, he is going ot have to completely clean the President's clock in the next two debates to continue his momentum. That could change things dramatically enough, maybe. Romney just drawing the next two debates won't be enough for him, but it is enough for the President.

Or there could be some sort of late October surprise such as foriegn crisis, economic collapse, etc.

 Frazzled wrote:

Not at all. IN the great game of the budget EVERYTHING is discretionary. Everything needs to be cut.

Even interest payments on the debt?