Is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis, of course you get rid of ObamaCare, that's the easy one. But there are others: Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can't afford to borrow money to pay for these things.

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

That sort of thing's a dangerous strategy, though. Cutting long-running programs (arts, research, etc., etc.) in lean times might seem like a good way to save money, but in practice what happens is that they become very, very hard to reinstate when things improve. Why? Because all of the people previously funded by these programs suddenly find themselves in the unemployment queue and drift off into new careers. Many of them don't come back even when the funding does, meaning that there's nobody there to train the next generation. In the end, a great deal of experience and knowledge is simply lost.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.

I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

Maybe if we weren't spending six billion dollars a month in Afghanistan (a war that history will tell us was pointless) we'd have more money for the NEA.

I think I'd be more ok with cutting funding to the NEA if it weren't like somebody cutting back on ketchup as their only effort towards paying off 40 credit cards.

I think I'd be more ok with cutting funding to the NEA if it weren't like somebody cutting back on ketchup as their only effort towards paying off 40 credit cards.

Really, the NEA, Planned Parenthood, NEH. We spend more collecting taxes than we actually give to those organizations.

But not word fucking one about the OIL subsidies. We export more oil than we import. The oil is stuck in the ground. What, are we worried the oil companies will take their business elsewhere? If it was cheaper to drill elsewhere, they WOULD.

An important distinction, I think, is between luxuries and necessities. In a lot of people's minds, research is not the same as the arts. Research is a necessity, the arts are a luxury.

An analogy: When you fall on hard times, you should probably still find a way to fix the roof, even if it means borrowing money. But at the same time, you should probably put off those kitchen renovations.
---
An even more important distinction, however, is between those who think that you can balance the budget by cutting funding for NEA and repealing health care reform;and those based in reality, where the NEA is a drop in the ocean and health care reform was designed to be deficit-reducing.

The trouble is that running a national economy isn't very much like keeping a house in good repair. In lean times, it makes a lot of sense to use deficit spending to build and repair infrastructure, make scientific advancements, essentially, to spend to get money into middle class pockets while also making national improvements. It's demand for goods and a large number of people with dollars to spend that gets an economy back on track.

The trouble is that running a national economy isn't very much like keeping a house in good repair. In lean times, it makes a lot of sense to use deficit spending to build and repair infrastructure, make scientific advancements, essentially, to spend to get money into middle class pockets while also making national improvements. It's demand for goods and a large number of people with dollars to spend that gets an economy back on track.

I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

He must really want to lose, what an idiot. Shit, maybe the idiot's even thinking about things that don't have to do with winning or losing, what a moron.

He should tell the truth, everyone knows that what really needs to be done is a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, who cares about debt. Spend the 5 Trillion and everything will be candy canes and teddy bears. Mitt really just need to make it clear that Obama's spending simply wasn't enough. Cut programs? What? That's silly, why would we do that when we can strenthen ties with the next dominant economy, China. He just wasn't thinking bit enough. If it was up to Mitt, we'd have at least a few trillion more debt than we do now. Also, the poor would all be sucessful and the middle income earners would be telling the business owners what to do! Heaven on earth.....

Spending our way out of a recession is great if it works. Problem is, anything that potentially creates significant growth is always by nature risky. If it doesn't work, or work well enough, we are still in massive, growing, debilitating debt. What do we do then? Spend more? There isn't a definitive, proven model for what spending works, until then, were at risk.

Do you want to do something that may work, or do something that will work?

There's clear examples of when debt spending as a country works, but not many.

Generally, when companies go into debt, it's either because they have to and bankruptcy is always an option, or because they already are back ordered on products/services and its clear that debt to grow will produce specific, predictable results.

I can't believe Mitt wants to cut something, he must want to lose.

There's no way it has anything to do with the fact that we'll all be fugged if it doesn't get under control.

He must really want to lose, what an idiot. Shit, maybe the idiot's even thinking about things that don't have to do with winning or losing, what a moron.

He should tell the truth, everyone knows that what really needs to be done is a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, who cares about debt. Spend the 5 Trillion and everything will be candy canes and teddy bears. Mitt really just need to make it clear that Obama's spending simply wasn't enough. Cut programs? What? That's silly, why would we do that when we can strenthen ties with the next dominant economy, China. He just wasn't thinking bit enough. If it was up to Mitt, we'd have at least a few trillion more debt than we do now. Also, the poor would all be sucessful and the middle income earners would be telling the business owners what to do! Heaven on earth.....

Spending our way out of a recession is great if it works. Problem is, anything that potentially creates significant growth is always by nature risky. If it doesn't work, or work well enough, we are still in massive, growing, debilitating debt. What do we do then? Spend more? There isn't a definitive, proven model for what spending works, until then, were at risk.

Do you want to do something that may work, or do something that will work?

There's clear examples of when debt spending as a country works, but not many.

Generally, when companies go into debt, it's either because they have to and bankruptcy is always an option, or because they already are back ordered on products/services and its clear that debt to grow will produce specific, predictable results.

I think I'd be alright with getting rid of funding for the NEA with borrowed dollars. In lean times, the responsible person cuts back on luxury items: vacations, eating out a lot, going to the movies, etc. They don't simple start putting these things on a credit card and hope to pay them off one day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of financially irresponsible people that have done just that, and are now paying the price. Bankruptcy and foreclosure suck, but they happen to people that live above and beyond their means on borrowed dollars.

In my mind, I think things like the NEA are luxury items. I don't think it's financially responsible to pay for them with borrowed dollars. There are other programs I wouldn't fund either. I don't feel the same way about Planned Parenthood and others. The problem is that no one is ever going to agree on every program that should be put on hold until such time as we get our financial house in order. Hence the endless fighting. We may be doomed as a civilization because of our diversity.

This video of Mitt rapping is awesome.

http://youtu.be/bxch-yi14BE