Where the hell do you find a gambling service that has a positive EV?

racist much?

Black unemployment is not 25%.  It is not even 15%.  

For 2012 food stamps are less then 80 billion dollars (projected) , defense is 1000 to 1400 billion dollars.   And while it is silly to break down into race, the 85% employees blacks are paying taxes to support those on the food stamps.  Get over the race bullshit, that is not the problem with the budget.  

Americans will not settle for working $7 an hour, in a hot field for 14 hours. If the wage was higher, the business would be unprofitable. Everyone has their price and the price of an American is too high.

B is irrelevant.    Yes, people have been given handouts, but Mexicans are not getting anywhere near what they put in.  They are a net positive to the economy.  We are FUCKING ourselves by encouraging hard workers to leave.  Maybe I am in an usual area (Maryland) but I have only seen Mexicans working hard on roads, picking crops and doing outdoor work.  I have seen them doing jobs that we can not fill in Maryland without them.  On the Eastern Shore we do not have enough Mexicans to pick the fields. 

This post highlights the problem with politics in America.  Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen.  If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it. 

There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country.  The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done.  This requires BOTH sides to co-operate.  So far they do not seem to be able to do that. 

100k satoshi just for spits and wiggles.

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.  Obama called BS and started counting it.  That's why it looks so much worse after he took office.  http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars.  Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

I'm going with the honest man.  The liar pisses me off.  

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

The only possibility I can think of is that he's imagining that the plan will create enormous additional economic growth and that will lead to increased tax revenue over the next ten years or so. If that's what he's thinking, his numbers are probably wildly unrealistic. But we can't really know since he won't share them.

On an unrelated note, I was thinking about more about Kokojie's "Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate." That sounds almost treasonous to me. Is winning the election really more important to him than balancing the budget? If Obama will commit to the key elements of Romney's super-awesome tax plan, that means the country probably gets it no matter which candidate wins. Putting winning the election ahead of the country's best interests would totally disqualify him, IMO. I hope that's not what he's thinking.

People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

That's a good way to not answer my question. Do we know of even one loophole Romney would close? Romney said part of his plan was closing loopholes, but the only loopholes that make any real difference are loopholes used by average middle class people such as the home mortgage interest deduction. Regardless of what tricks he has up his sleeves, either closing loopholes is a bogus promise or he should be able to give at least one example of a loophole he might want to close. It sounds like he's promising to do magic.

I have to make much the same point with his comment about cutting government funding of public broadcasting. I think he's right and that's a good example of government spending that could be cut, largely a subsidy to the rich. But if that's the best example he can come up with -- something that won't make any difference to the bottom line -- it suggests he has no better ideas and has no plan for things to actually cut that will make an actual difference.

That's a really good question. Based on long-term party history, you have to favor the Republicans on this. But based on short-term party history, neither party has done much when they were in power. It used to be that you could at least figure that if Congress and the President are from opposite parties, compromise will hold down spending. But a lot of the recent compromise has been "you spend money where I want, and I'll let you spend money where you want". Honestly, I'd say it's a pretty close tie with maybe a slight edge to Romney because he might actually return to old-school Republican reductions in government spending. But if you want tax increases to be part of the solution over cutting government services, then you may prefer Obama, even if you don't think he'll cut the deficit quite as much.

So when is this downtrend happening? I would really like to buy some cheap coins...

He has said he will not raise taxes for anyone, even the high earners.  He has said what he will not cut in terms of the budget, leaving no room to balance the budget.  Getting rid of big bird is not going to be enough.  Obama has not outlined a plan that will do it either.  

A combination of taxing higher earners 39% , a 10% defense cut, stopping subsidy money to oil and farming interests as well as moderate cuts throughout the budget could do it.  Neither side has the balls to do it.