.

Join Us at Patch's Presidential Debate Viewing Party

Watch with us on Oct. 3.

Where will you be the night of Oct. 3 for the first presidential debate?

We hereby invite you to join us at Patch's presidential debate viewing party at The Bench Bar and Grill in Stony Brook. The party starts at 8:30 p.m. and will run until the close of the debate at 10:30 p.m.

Watch with us as President Barack Obama and candidate Mitt Romney square off in a debate focused on domestic policy. Jim Lehrer, host of NewsHour on PBS, will be the moderator.

All members of the community are welcome to this event, which will feature free food and lively conversation with fellow locals and students. We've invited local government representatives and other public figures, and we'll be running a live blog across Patch sites in Suffolk County to give everyone not at the party the opportunity to share their thoughts on the debate as it unfolds.

We'd love to see you there.

Click here to visit the event listing and RSVP on Facebook.

John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 02:55 PM
anyone who needed to see his birth certificate is an idiot
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 03:00 PM
not sure if it was here, but whoever said the "republican" states are doing better in spite of Obama, well, to bad 4 out of the top 5 states that receive the most federal funding have Republican governors http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states-with-the-most-federal-funding.html;_ylt=AuJHD4HeNI7grHNTwyxgWyCCuodG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4YnJoNG1hBG1pdANjbmJjIHRvcCBzdG9yaWVzBHBrZwNlYjYzMjM5NC02MWYxLTNiNTItYWNlMS05MzQ2ZDczNTYyY2YEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZExQQ0FUZW1wBHZlcgNiM2U2MzMzMS0wOTgzLTExZTItYTNmZC02MWJiNmFjNzZmOTQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTJqdnVzMDc2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDODViZTc5M2YtNWM4OS0zZmE5LWEyOGMtZGNlNGIzMTAxOTkxBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Romney didn't have to inherit anything, his dad paid for all of his expenses until he could support himself. Not saying there's anything wrong in it, but don't make it sound like he used to work at wall-mart and from that turned himself into a multi-millionaire several times over.
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Yes John, and as of today, after less than 4 years of Obama, it stands at just over $16 trillion. The Obama administration's spending has added $5.3 trillion, which means James Pollard is right when he says "Obama borrowed more money in less than four years than Bush did in eight". Interesting (and disturbing) footnote from that website you posted, for the very first time in U.S. history the nation's debt exceeds our Gross Domestic Product - we owe more than we make. And speaking of GDP, under Obama it has only increased by less than $1.2 trillion since the end of 2008, the smallest 4-year increase since Carter's $964 billion. It increased by over $4.5 trillion under Bush ($2 trillion after 4 years) which beat Clinton's $3.5 trillion increase, by the way.
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 04:14 PM
John, don't confuse Federal Funding with Federal Aid. Federal Funding includes money to things like Defense Contractors, it doesn't even remotely mean these states aren't doing well. Perhaps you'd know that if if you'd actually read your article instead of just looking for an anti-Republican headline to post.
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 04:31 PM
robkoz, are you really that clueless? Or are you stuck in some kind of time machine? George Pataki has been the only Republican elected Governor in NY since Nelson Rockefeller.
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 04:46 PM
not anti republican, anti-thinking your side is always right and never wrong. It also includes running government agencies, like the police, and entitlement programs. They obviously wouldn't need federal funding if they were doing so well on their own as previously implied. top 10 States that receive the most Federal AID and the party of their governors (you'll see several states on both lists) 1) Alaska-Republican 2) Wyoming-Republican 3) Delaware-Democrat 4) New Mexico-Republican 5) Vermont- Democrat 6) North Dakota-Republican 7) New York- Democrat 8) Louisiana-Republican 9) Mississippi- republican 10) Montana-Democrat 60% are republican http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/fas-10.pdf
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 04:50 PM
I had no idea what the numbers would be, I saw an article on yahoo about states that receive federal funding, found most of them were republican governors. You then sparked my interest to see what states receive Federal Aid and how much, and 3 out of the top 5 had republican governors, and 6 of the top 10 did as well
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 05:12 PM
my point is, the last president doubled the national debt yet those who supported him criticize Obama for spending to much. it's the hypocrisy more than the actual argument
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Statistics, you have to love them. So we've gone from 80% of the 5 "neediest" states (by your original post) to 60% - not too surprisng, I guess, since 29 states (right about 60%) currently have Republican Governors. Let's look at ALL the states though, shall we? Of the 24 states receiving more than the U.S. average aid per state it's pretty much an even split: 12 have Democratic Governors, 11 have Republican, and one (Rhode Island) has an Independent Governor. However, of the 26 states that need LESS than the U.S. average aid per state, 18 have Republican Governors, only 8 have a Democratic Governor.
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 05:58 PM
The hypocrisy cuts both ways John. Obama's supporters criticize Bush for his spending, many calling him the worst President ever in large part because of his economic policies. Yet Obama has taken half the time to add an even greater amount to the country's debt - with less GDP and higher unemployment to show for it. Still using the data from the website you posted, the second chart shows debt per capita going back to Gerald Ford. Kudos to President Clinton for having per capita income increase by about $7,500, better by half than either Bush or Reagan. But what I find as disturbing as anything else in that data is that it shows Obama is the first president to have the U.S per capita income DECLINE over his term to date.
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 06:42 PM
well one post was in regard to Federal Funding, I made it even more specific to Federal Aid. The statement was these states are going better in spite of Obama because of their republican governors. When nearly 21% of Republican governor's states (6/29) are in the top 10 of most federal aid received, that's not considered "better" is my point.
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 07:14 PM
John, Take your analysis one step further. OK, 6 of the 29 states (20.7%) with Republican governors are in the top ten, but so are 4 of the 20 states (20.0%) with Democratic governors - that's a wash, no? But 18 of the 29 states with Republican governors, that's greater than 60%, need LESS than the U.S. average of aid - compared to only 40% (8 of 20) for states with Democratic governors. Another way to look at is that of the 29 states with Republican governors, more of them (18) need below the U.S. average aid than need more than the U.S. average (11). Democratic states? By a 12:8 ratio, more of them are above the U.S. average aid requirement. Your data site, your criteria (Federal aid) for how they're doing - on the whole the Republican led states are doing better.
Janet October 01, 2012 at 07:17 PM
Don't you just love how "liberals" can spin things to fit their needs? Trickle down economics works. It was proven in the 80"s with Reagan. The problem today is most businesses are holding back from spending the cash they have because they are afraid of the taxes that Obamanation is going to impose if he gets re-elected and also a further decline in sales if he gets re-elected. Private industry is much different than state or federal jobs. We rely on people to purchase our goods to receive a paycheck not the government taxing people to pay our paycheck.
Janet October 01, 2012 at 07:50 PM
GM As far as compairing John Kerry & Mitt Romney I believe it's not that they're weak candidates it's that they have money and lots of people are very jealous of that fact. You can't blame the person for taking advantage of the tax system you need to blame the system and then get your senator and congressman to change it. If you had money you would take advantage of tax loopholes also. The fairest way is to have a flat tax-no deductions. Everyone pays 10% of their income. Everytime that subject is brought up in the house it's shut down right away. Why? Because what senator or congressman isn't wealthy? Agreed, some more than others but they all have lots more money than we do. I'm sure you are aware of this but with the healthcare law-they have their own special plan and pensions & office expenses for life. So we can't just blame the "wealthy citizens" it's our legislature as well.
EG October 01, 2012 at 08:37 PM
Janet, most of the hardcore class warfare leftists have never signed the front of a paycheck, nor have they written out quarterly "Fair Share" checks to the IRS. They can't comprehend that having a low capital gains tax gives investors incentive to put forth RISK Capital, which in turn creates jobs and expands our economy. Even when confronted with the fact that historically, lower capital gains result in INCREASED tax revenue, their class warfare ideology ignores this and instead opts for punitive and redistributive policies on job creators, resulting in reduced tax revenue and an economic spiral. If we allow Obama and the leftists (Republicans included) to nosedive our economy much longer, we may not be able to pull out of that spiral and there aint nobody on this planet going to bail out Uncle SAM
Janet October 01, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Excelentely written EG. I could not have said it as elequently as you did and I couldn't agree more.
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 10:39 PM
my point is, when 60% of the top 10 states that need the most federal aid have Republican governors, you can't argue they are doing "better". Even the top 5 consists of 3 Republicans, 2 of which are #1 and #2 in the country for federal aide received. Even in the top 15, 8 are republican as opposed to 6 democratic. You cannot say Republicans are doing better when through the first top 15 states they outnumber the democratic ones 4:3 and through the first 24 are even. They have the larger percentage in terms of how many receive below the average, but they also constitute a large amount of the top 15 states that DO need it, even the top 24 are SPLIT almost identically. You cannot definitively say the republicans are doing better when they hold the first 2, then 3 out of 5, then 6 out of 10, then 8 of 15, then 11 out of 24. You can say they're doing very similar, but not definitively better
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 10:40 PM
my point is, when 60% of the top 10 states that need the most federal aid have Republican governors, you can't argue they are doing "better". Even the top 5 consists of 3 Republicans, 2 of which are #1 and #2 in the country for federal aide received. Even in the top 15, 8 are republican as opposed to 6 democratic. You cannot say Republicans are doing better when through the first top 15 states they outnumber the democratic ones 4:3 and through the first 24 are even. They have the larger percentage in terms of how many receive below the average, but they also constitute a large amount of the top 15 states that need significantly MORE than the average, even the top 24 are SPLIT almost identically. You cannot definitively say the republicans are doing better when they hold the first 2, then 3 out of 5, then 6 out of 10, then 8 of 15, then 11 out of 24. You can say they're doing very similar, but not definitively better
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 10:54 PM
everyone pays 10% of their income? 10% of a plumber's paycheck is very different than 10% of a CEO's paycheck. That is EXACTLY why we house the LARGEST income disparity in the industrialized world. No one is blaming anyone (least not me) for being rich. The fact is those who cannot afford to lose 10% of their paycheck shouldn't be burdened with paying those taxes and not be able to save up. How do you think you get rich in the first place? you save your money. Taking 10% of a paycheck from someone who can only afford to lose 5% is what prevents people from saving money. look at it this way, who's able to save more: a ceo making $1 million or a handyman making $60,000 (a year) while both being taxed 10%? That's why you need different taxes for different incomes
John Gruber October 01, 2012 at 11:06 PM
first off, the economic spiral you're talking about didn't even start under Obama, and the Bush tax cuts coupled with a war doubled our deficit. Trickle-down does not work. By the time you get all the way "down", the money has not gotten to where it was intended. The backbone of this country, are small businesses, which trickle down economics does not support, it supports and trusts the big corporations with money, and when you do that you get 2008. If there was tighter regulations on businesses and entire corporations, maybe. I don't understand why you'd rather a corporation be given investment money but not small businesses when the majority of businesses in American are considered "small businesses", so it almost makes zero sense to give the majority of the "investment money"(from whatever taxes) to the few. look no further than 2008 that corporations can't be trusted to do what's right with money. And again, you might want to criticize Obama for something that actually started during his term, not over 2 years prior
Underdog October 01, 2012 at 11:51 PM
John, you can't just look at the "top" 5 or 10 or 24, you have to consider ALL the states, and clearly more Republican led states are receiving less aid than average. But if you really want to continue with data manipuation, try this - flip the chart so that the states receiving the least aid are on top, which is probably how it should be because they're the ones that are doing the best. Now 4 of the 5 top states, including the top 3, have Republican governors, 8 of the top 10, 10 of the top 15, and 18 of the top 26. I'd call that definitively better.
EG October 02, 2012 at 02:09 AM
John, I never said the spiral started with Obama. I said leftists including Republicans. Bush was a leftist and I criticize his unfunded wars and Medicaid expansion. Tax cuts didn't hurt our economy, it's the obscene spending and corresponding interest that is choking us. Your criticism of what you like to call "trickle down economics" is bogus. I lived the 80's and if you didn't make money in the 80's you were either a fool, lazy, scared or incapable of making money, but the opportunity was there. The Tax, Punish and Regulate policies of the left destroy that opportunity and kick out the rungs to the ladder of success. Sorry John but condemning the failed leftist policies of Republicans doesn't make the case for doubling down on the same failures with Obama and the left.
John Gruber October 02, 2012 at 02:37 AM
punish and regulate policies destroy oppertunity? I'm sorry, I vaguely recall something about big companies essentially losing people's life savings, screwing with people's assets for their benefit, and giving these people who run their clients and company into the ground multi-million dollar severance packages just a couple of years ago. Oh, I also hear these Citi Bank folk paid for naming rights at Citi Field even though they were bailed out by the government....but yea, rules and regulations just ruin opportunity...the opportunity to screw people over
John Gruber October 02, 2012 at 02:38 AM
and that's my point, we don't live in the freakin 80's anymore
John Gruber October 02, 2012 at 02:39 AM
didn't we learn in 2008 we can't trust companies to do the right thing?
EG October 02, 2012 at 04:09 AM
No we don't live in the 80's anymore, but I'll call out the revisionists everytime I'll get to the so called evil corporations in another post
John Gruber October 02, 2012 at 04:22 AM
you consider the top 5, top 10, top 15 to as a percentile. The first 5 states would be the 90 to 100 percentile, meaning these states receive more funding than at least 90% of the country and republican states make up the majority of them. i actually did that and came up with this conclusion. The republican states are weighed more heavily at the top and bottom with the democrats falling in the middle. meaning the republican states either pay a lot more than the average or pay less than the average, which, in it of itself is average. But that does not mean they are "better off" than the rest of the country. If they were better off, as a whole, they wouldn't make up such a high percentage of those groups.
Underdog October 02, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Wow John, you and highhat are a pair - you'll continue to twist your argument around to try and support an untenable position. It was your criteria that "better off" was determined by the amount of Federal aid received, and very simply: more Republican led states are BELOW the U.S. average for needing aid (by a ratio of 18-11) and more Democrat led states are ABOVE the U.S. average for needing aid (by a ratio of 12-8). If you still want to look at 60% of the top 10 'most aid' states being Republican and say that's even with 80% of the top 10 'least aid' states being Republican, be my guest. I think a rational person would agree more of the states doing better than average are led by Republican governors.
John Gruber October 02, 2012 at 02:25 PM
. If 2 of their states lead the nation in aid received, they're not doing better as a whole. You can't argue that. It's simply not true. the ones at the bottom don't cancel out the ones at the top they average it. If republicans were doing better as a whole, they would not be 1 AND 2 nor would they have virtually the same amount of states receiving more than the average as democrats. they are just about the same, a very far cry from being "better".

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »