President Romney Would Ax Arts Funding
#2
Posted: 8/18/12 at 4:55pm
What ISN'T Romney going to dump?
I have a few republican friends, and they keep saying things like: 'just you wait what happens if you re-elect Obamma', and wake up, America.
I just want to sout: Wait to see what happens if you get your way.
I have a few republican friends, and they keep saying things like: 'just you wait what happens if you re-elect Obamma', and wake up, America.
I just want to sout: Wait to see what happens if you get your way.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#3
Posted: 8/18/12 at 5:21pm
Defense related spending in 2012 is estimated to be as much as $1.5 trillion and Romney not only refuses to cut a penny there, he also talks about increasing spending on defense...
The Bush tax cuts for income earners over $250,000 costs approximately $80 billion annually.
If he entirely cut funding for the NEA, he would save $146 million per year. It's a joke and political pandering at its worst.
There are other places the government spends a lot of money that could be cut if he were serious about budget cuts that I don't agree with cutting but at least one could say they would help reduce the deficit - medicare, entitlement programs, but regardless of what Romney says he doesn't have the political guts to do much there either. He's another useless talking head masquerading as a fiscal hawk.
The Bush tax cuts for income earners over $250,000 costs approximately $80 billion annually.
If he entirely cut funding for the NEA, he would save $146 million per year. It's a joke and political pandering at its worst.
There are other places the government spends a lot of money that could be cut if he were serious about budget cuts that I don't agree with cutting but at least one could say they would help reduce the deficit - medicare, entitlement programs, but regardless of what Romney says he doesn't have the political guts to do much there either. He's another useless talking head masquerading as a fiscal hawk.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
Updated On: 8/18/12 at 05:21 PM
#4
Posted: 8/18/12 at 6:14pm
President Romney just can't ever be.
Just no. I seriously can not fathom how anybody could vaguely consider voting for this guy...he has the second most punchable face in America, second only to Bill O'Reilly. It is perfectly obvious to anybody with the remotest scintilla of intelligence that the man is a cretin. I mean, really.
I feel better now, thank you.
Just no. I seriously can not fathom how anybody could vaguely consider voting for this guy...he has the second most punchable face in America, second only to Bill O'Reilly. It is perfectly obvious to anybody with the remotest scintilla of intelligence that the man is a cretin. I mean, really.
I feel better now, thank you.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
Updated On: 8/18/12 at 06:14 PM
#5
Posted: 8/18/12 at 7:13pm
I don't think any Republicans since Reagan's era believe that horsecrap about cutting the NEA/PBS/NEH/AMTRAK.
===
In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.
Washington Post: It’s not clear what Romney would actually cut to make his budget add up
===
In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.
Washington Post: It’s not clear what Romney would actually cut to make his budget add up
#6
Posted: 8/18/12 at 8:12pm
I really don't like him.
Gypsy - Betty Buckley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUN5XoB5vFs&feature=youtu.be
#7
Posted: 8/18/12 at 10:00pm
Mitt, I already don't want to vote for you. You don't need to keep giving me more reasons.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#8
Posted: 8/18/12 at 10:07pm
How do you know he has not switched his position since posting? You posted this at around four o'clock and it is now ten. I'm sure his views on the matter have changed since then.
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
#9
Posted: 8/18/12 at 10:50pm
Oh for the love of God just suck it Willard.
From now on that's the extent of my political input.
From now on that's the extent of my political input.
I know you.
I know you.
I know you.
#10
Posted: 8/18/12 at 11:04pm
I think less of Romney every day.
Clueless.
Heartless.
Thoughtless.
Soulless.
Clueless.
Heartless.
Thoughtless.
Soulless.
"Through The Sacrifice You Made, We Can't Believe The Price You Paid..For Love!"
#11
Posted: 8/18/12 at 11:28pm
It's like they want to breed smarts and empathy right out of the American populace. I mean, how much worse can it get than Romney assuring current and near-retirees that *their* benefits won't be gutted by his and Ryan's budget? Only ALL future retirees'. He's counting on the "as long as you've got yours you don't need to think about anybody else" attitude that has been fostered here since the election of Ronald Reagan to do the trick.
I keep telling myself that Americans really do care more about each other than the Randians and Mormon power grabbers would like to believe.
I keep telling myself that Americans really do care more about each other than the Randians and Mormon power grabbers would like to believe.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#12
Posted: 8/19/12 at 1:37am
Mitt, I already don't want to vote for you. You don't need to keep giving me more reasons.
In other words: "Stop jacking me off, I already came!"
In other words: "Stop jacking me off, I already came!"
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#13
Posted: 8/19/12 at 9:07am
No, Namo, that's not the logic they're using. That logic would fail, because, well, it's logical.
They're using "What about the children?" illogical logic. Thus:
1. Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security are running out of money! If we keep spending them the way we are now, they will go bankrupt.
2. If they go bankrupt, they will be nothing left for "our children" and "our children's children." (See note below)
3. In order to protect them from running out for our children's children, we should end them now and give everyone today the money to spend as they please, because as stupid as people are are with money, they can't be any stupider with money than the government is money, right?
4. I mean, when was the last time you saw the government spend money wisely? (Not counting things like police protection, firefighters, highways, traffic lights, libraries--they don't count. Just things that the government can be said to WASTE money on, y'know, like the Mupppets and Bill Moyers and big-business bailouts from Democrats. Not big-business bailouts from Republicans, though, because those were too big to fail, or something, so it was okay, but only that once.)
NOTE: Keep mentioning "our children's children"...it has a nice ring. Especially when you're proposing something that will actually harm our children's children,
They're using "What about the children?" illogical logic. Thus:
1. Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security are running out of money! If we keep spending them the way we are now, they will go bankrupt.
2. If they go bankrupt, they will be nothing left for "our children" and "our children's children." (See note below)
3. In order to protect them from running out for our children's children, we should end them now and give everyone today the money to spend as they please, because as stupid as people are are with money, they can't be any stupider with money than the government is money, right?
4. I mean, when was the last time you saw the government spend money wisely? (Not counting things like police protection, firefighters, highways, traffic lights, libraries--they don't count. Just things that the government can be said to WASTE money on, y'know, like the Mupppets and Bill Moyers and big-business bailouts from Democrats. Not big-business bailouts from Republicans, though, because those were too big to fail, or something, so it was okay, but only that once.)
NOTE: Keep mentioning "our children's children"...it has a nice ring. Especially when you're proposing something that will actually harm our children's children,
#14
Posted: 8/19/12 at 1:20pm
Shared sacrifice but leave the arts alone?
Makes total sense especially when the national debt is. absolutely obscene. Take all the money the super rich have and a dent would not even appear it.Where would O's class warfare do than?
Makes total sense especially when the national debt is. absolutely obscene. Take all the money the super rich have and a dent would not even appear it.Where would O's class warfare do than?
Poster Emeritus
#15
Posted: 8/19/12 at 1:26pm
I am always amazed. Where were these conservatives who were so concerned about spending during the War in Iraq when Bush was President?Bush even came into office with a surplus. They had no problem with the millions of dollars being spent on a day to day basis. No problems with the money and contracts we had with Haliburton.The war was based on a lie and they are silent.
NOW THAT A DEMOCRAT IS IN OFFICE they are suddenly worried about the debt we are leaving for their children. Now they are concerned with the spending.
Their selective memory and hypocrisy just amazes me.
NOW THAT A DEMOCRAT IS IN OFFICE they are suddenly worried about the debt we are leaving for their children. Now they are concerned with the spending.
Their selective memory and hypocrisy just amazes me.
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
#16
Posted: 8/19/12 at 1:27pm
The arts contributed to the debt? Never mind the wars, huh?
You Teabagging deficit frauds! Where were you and the funny hats in 2005?
You Teabagging deficit frauds! Where were you and the funny hats in 2005?
"Through The Sacrifice You Made, We Can't Believe The Price You Paid..For Love!"
Updated On: 8/19/12 at 01:27 PM
#17
Posted: 8/19/12 at 1:50pm
This is for Roxy. If he feels nothing from watching the kindest man defend public funding of the arts (specifically for children), then he is as cold-blooded as Mitt Romney who wants commercials on PBS in addition to axing arts funding (which makes up HOW MUCH of the budget?). Don't think he does not have it in him. He destroyed KB Toys.
Fred Rogers on the funding of PBS
Fred Rogers on the funding of PBS
#18
Posted: 8/19/12 at 2:24pm
"Makes total sense especially when the national debt is. absolutely obscene. Take all the money the super rich have and a dent would not even appear it.Where would O's class warfare do than?"
Isn't that funny? Asking the super rich to pay in taxes what they were paying when Saint Ronald Reagan was president is translated by Roxy's not-particularly-sharp analytical brain as "class warfare" and taking "all the money the super-rich have."
The super rich did juusssssst fine under Ronnie. The taxes lost by the Bush tax cuts for the super rich would go a long way toward filling the gap created by W's two wars, which he didn't put on the books. Both of those issues were caused by W. W's vice president assured the nation that "Ronald Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." The Clinton budget surplus was whittled away in a matter of a few years by W, and the debt increased exponentially from that point on. Yet not ONCE did Roxy seem concerned about the debt. Not one post about it. Just years of posts in which he declared W was not the devil incarnate.
Well, Rox, the devil's in the details. You seem unconcerned about them.
Isn't that funny? Asking the super rich to pay in taxes what they were paying when Saint Ronald Reagan was president is translated by Roxy's not-particularly-sharp analytical brain as "class warfare" and taking "all the money the super-rich have."
The super rich did juusssssst fine under Ronnie. The taxes lost by the Bush tax cuts for the super rich would go a long way toward filling the gap created by W's two wars, which he didn't put on the books. Both of those issues were caused by W. W's vice president assured the nation that "Ronald Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." The Clinton budget surplus was whittled away in a matter of a few years by W, and the debt increased exponentially from that point on. Yet not ONCE did Roxy seem concerned about the debt. Not one post about it. Just years of posts in which he declared W was not the devil incarnate.
Well, Rox, the devil's in the details. You seem unconcerned about them.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Updated On: 8/19/12 at 02:24 PM
#19
Posted: 8/19/12 at 2:45pm
Take all the money the super rich have and a dent would not even appear
I find this to be your most ironic statement. Cutting ALL funding to the NEA saves $146 million annually. You talk about not seeing a dent, $146 million isn't even a blip on the radar. "Shared sacrifice" is used as a copout whenever something is getting axed that people disagree with. Truly shared sacrifice isn't increasing defense spending above record levels while slashing entitlement programs that benefit the poor and middle classes and extending tax cuts that continue to allow the rich to pay the lowest tax rates they've paid in 70 years - yes, lower than they paid under Reagan.
I find this to be your most ironic statement. Cutting ALL funding to the NEA saves $146 million annually. You talk about not seeing a dent, $146 million isn't even a blip on the radar. "Shared sacrifice" is used as a copout whenever something is getting axed that people disagree with. Truly shared sacrifice isn't increasing defense spending above record levels while slashing entitlement programs that benefit the poor and middle classes and extending tax cuts that continue to allow the rich to pay the lowest tax rates they've paid in 70 years - yes, lower than they paid under Reagan.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#20
Posted: 8/19/12 at 5:29pm
Mitt Romney will be president and he will be a good one. He knows and understands economics and will get our country out of debt. He will stimulate job growth. 12 years of Bush and Obama have been a disaster.
#21
Posted: 8/19/12 at 5:30pm
ASCAP!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#22
Posted: 8/19/12 at 5:31pm
Who needs arts when apparently, we can be bored and drab but have money????
#23
Posted: 8/19/12 at 6:02pm
Jim, you shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about. Stick to your God Awful music.The GOP killed our economy and Obama has done his best to fix it.You make these idiotic post but never back them up. Mitt is a terrible choice.The GOP can;t even get behind him.He doesn;t understand the economy. He can't even relate to the common American. He has never been poor. He has numerous homes. He brags about his car elevator and many cars and exotic vacations he takes. You really think he relates to you and your financial problems? Really? No, he DOES NOT understand the economy. He understands business. Not the same thing. If you actually looked at what Mitt wants to do you would not endorse him. You mention Bush and Obama. Well, Mitt agrees a lot with Bush on the economy Sherlock.His policies won't be much different.How can you criticize Bush and praise Romney? It just shows you have no clue as to the BS that comes out of your Country Boy mouth.
Go back to sleep and promise me you won't vote.
Go back to sleep and promise me you won't vote.
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
#24
Posted: 8/19/12 at 6:32pm
Cactus Humper!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#25
Posted: 8/19/12 at 6:40pm
I'm comfused ...
President Romney would ax arts funding to do what?
If he ax nicely, he might just git it.
President Romney would ax arts funding to do what?
If he ax nicely, he might just git it.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 8/19/12 at 06:40 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95