Who Won the Debate?

[palehorse]

I don't see how, unless you propose across the board cuts.

What credits/deductions? How much? What taxes should go up?

This is the kind of detail that needs to be presented.

Not by me. That is for Congress to work out based on DIRECTION and GUIDANCE from the President based on said President's ideals and intent.

Which is exactly why I believe Romney was on to something when he stuck to a very short list that describes his ideals and intent. It is not his job to figure out the specifics ahead of time. He merely points the ship in the right direction while Congress is supposed to make it move.

The main problem I have with Obama is that he is pointing the ship (giving GUIDANCE) in the completely wrong direction...

 

[monovillage]

I'm all for getting rid of research "to see why the elasticity of gum on pavement changes with temperature" or studies "that monitor the migratory patterns of NYC pigeons" but PBS? Really?

PBS is great!

I disagree, but if it's high enough of a priority for you to borrow your kids and grand kids money to pay for it then cool.

 

[monovillage]

That's about $300M dollars in total federal expenditure out of $3.7 trillion. Way to make the tough decisions.

A few hundred million there, a few billion there, pretty soon it starts to add up to real money.

Paraphrased off the Dirksen quote.

 

[monovillage]

With $16 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs, getting rid of big bird is the least of our problems........

You have to start someplace.

I also have to admit that i'm so old that Big Bird and Sesame Street have no cuddly memories for me, I can certainly understand how younger folks have an attachment for their old shows.

 

[monovillage]

The hits keep on coming from last nights historic debate.

Lol, did you see the picture of her on the podium after the debate?

 

[zinfamous]

So what created the good economy in the late 90s? Higher income tax rate? No. It was a combination of spending cuts and capital gains tax cuts. The national debt is kicking our ass. You also have the Fed printing money like toilet paper diminishing capital. You wan't inflation I give you the F.E.D.

Reagan wasn't king he had democrat house and senates to deal with.

The record of the Reagan recovery is absolutely clear and Obama's recovery can't hold a candle to what happened in 81-84.

the recession of 80-81 can't hold a candle to what happened in 2008-2009.

that being said, unemployment at the end of Reagan's term was about 2 points less than it was when he began his term, correct? ....which is about even with Obama in 4 years. just over 8% down to 6%

and with Obama: 10.5% to just over 8%, right?

Again, people like to ignore the convenient fact that the majority of people that are still unemployed are completely unskilled/untrained/inexperienced for the type fo jobs that this current economy has available.

The bubble of the 90s and 2000s was swelling with positions that were entirely redundant to the economy that we were becoming. There are literally 100s of thousands of jobs available in this country, with very few applicants. Why? because the old labor economy no longer exists. We've been pushing people towards education and tech for decades now, and we know have a rather high-tech, hi-skilled labor demand.

No president is going to be to just give these widely available jobs to people that are unqualified for them. The president can, however, encourage citizens to educate themselves, to re-educate themselves later in life, by providing and encouraging public incentives for such things.

 

[zinfamous]

The hits keep on coming from last nights historic debate.

Historic? are you on crack?

the incumbent nearly always loses the first debate. Romney needed that one, by the way, and good for him.

It's no secret that he is getting assraped in every national poll.

 

[Farang]

I'm in the tank but was honestly surprised when I went online after watching. I felt like it was mostly a draw, not any sort of disaster. I was upset that liberals and even the Obama campaign weren't spinning like the other side was/would have regardless of what happened. You really weaken your own case when you let the other side steamroll you on framing the debate afterwards.

Now I'm obviously wrong given the CNN poll numbers, but still the left didn't do themselves any favors by conceding defeat.

That said, Romney is still in a ditch so it remains to be seen how much this helps.

I think one reason I didn't think it was so bad was I knew a lot of answers to questions Obama should have asked--'How do you cover pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate?' for example.. he had many opportunities to fluster Romney in places where Romney has never had a good answer (even Republicans would agree he has got flustered on that one in interviews)

 

[Fern]

Romney won.

I didn't see the entire debate, I was busy making dinner (slow cooked/BBQ baby back ribs etc.). I noticed Obama seemed to stammer quite a bit. And a few times his answer was sort of 'all over the place', i.e., rather disorganized.

My son had a class requirement to watch and write a report immediately after. In coming and going I noticed he got annoyed with Obama for repeatedly bringing up the the $5 trillion tax number.

Jim Lehrer needs to go, I think. At first I got the impression that he was trying to cut off Romney and giving free rein to Obama. In the first segment Obama won the coin toss and went first. But Lehrer tried to stop Romney from responding thus giving the final word to Obama. That's wrong, if you go first the other person gets the final word. Later I noticed he did it to Obama. Romney went first but Lehrer let him also have the last word. I don't care if the moderator lets them go past the designated time if the discussion is worthy, but for heaven's sake get the rules right.

To help with his homework project I told my son he should watch some post-debate analysis. Before switching to it I told him we would watch Fox where they would be saying "Hell yeah!, Romney kicked azz", then we would switch over to MSNBC where they would be saying "Hell yeah!, Obama kicked azz".

The Fox part went as expected, but when I clicked over to MSNBC I was surprised. On MSNBC there no celebration, just hand-wringing. Chris Matthews looked like somebody pissed in his corn flakes and his head was about to explode. I figured at that point Romney had clearly won.

BTW: As a tax accountant I was quite happy to see somebody finally call 'B.S." on the claim that we have tax loopholes for companies to move overseas. When Romney called BS after Obama made the claim, Obama looked completely lost to respond. He had nothing, it was as if he was shocked somebody would actually question that claim.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You have to start someplace.

I also have to admit that i'm so old that Big Bird and Sesame Street have no cuddly memories for me, I can certainly understand how younger folks have an attachment for their old shows.

I fuggin hated Sesame Street when I was a kid. Dumbest show ever IMO. My aunt was a school teacher and when my family visited she would make my brother and I watch it. I hated going to her house.

Fern

 

[randomrogue]

Interesting. About 5 years ago I knew a company that had several offices in the USA, one in Korea, and one in China. They had somehow managed to rotate their tax schedules so that they could constantly move money from one company to the next and never pay any taxes. I watched the IRS audit them every year and they never got in trouble for it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Interesting that, still, nobody here is gushing Romney. We have plenty of "I have defined myself as anti-Obama, thus I consider him doing badly to be my success," yet nothing from outside these posters' ego-propping algorithms touching on the candidate himself. The closest we have is fantolay's, "I am really stupid and all this 'economy' stuff is way over my head, and even though my stupidity means that I can't fathom the skill of people smarter than me and thus I can't accurately judge from a theoretical framework whether they actually have skill, I'm placing my faith in Romney because he talks good and that's the best thing my little mind has to go on." But I don't really see that as representative of many.

So, if even the mindless Conservative Talk listeners in here aren't swayed, I'm wondering if the level on which this is being judged a "win" really matters.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think one reason I didn't think it was so bad was I knew a lot of answers to questions Obama should have asked--'How do you cover pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate?' for example.. he had many opportunities to fluster Romney in places where Romney has never had a good answer (even Republicans would agree he has got flustered on that one in interviews)

I don't think that would be quite the 'gotcha' as you expect. I'm pretty sure Romneycare handles it without a mandate and Howard Dean was all over TV earlier this year explaining in detail how they do it without a mandate.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Interesting that, still, nobody here is gushing Romney. We have plenty of "I have defined myself as anti-Obama, thus I consider him doing badly to be my success," yet nothing from outside these posters' ego-propping algorithms touching on the candidate himself.
The closest we have is fantolay's, "I am really stupid and all this 'economy' stuff is way over my head, and even though my stupidity means that I can't fathom the skill of people smarter than me and thus I can't accurately judge from a theoretical framework whether they have such skill, I'm placing my faith in Romney because he talks good and that's the best thing my little mind has to go on." But I don't really see that as representative of many.

So, if even the mindless Conservative Talk listeners in here aren't swayed, I'm wondering if the level on which this is being judged a "win" really matters.

You have a much higher opinion of many voters than I. I think for far too many nice hair, good looks and appearing presidential is about as deep as it goes.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Since raising taxes won't grow an economy then should we raise taxes? Our economy sucks and you want to raise taxes? The added revenue won't make a lick of difference.

Clinton actually LOWERED taxes as well as raised them. He lowered the capital gains tax rate in 97 from 28% to 20%. After the cut actual revenues increased from the tax. Obama was asked about this a couple times in 07-08 and he didn't care about the revenue he wanted more "fairness". I can pull up a vid if need be.


The idea that Romney wants zero regulation is just silly. The lack of regulation wasn't the root cause of what happened in 08. Banks made loans that they normally wouldn't make and they were stuck with a bunch of bad paper. They moved the loans around, reshuffled them and then finally they ran out of places to unload them. They got these crap loans because the government wanted to increase home ownership and "suggested" that banks made loans to people who couldn't afford them.

As far as regulations there are very few needed to stop a situation that happened before the meltdown.

Cutting capital gains tax rates motivates investment which will lead to more investment which is exactly what we need. Increasing capital gains tax rates WILL contract an economy. Obama wants to raise this rate.

Saying that there is too much regulation isn't saying that there shouldn't be ANY regulation.

If you lower capital gains tax rates you can grow an economy it has been proven. The Bush tax cuts did help create growth, the Clinton tax cut created growth. You are just wrong here.


40-90k isn't even keeping up with population growth.

Bush had 2 wars and the deficit never got anywhere close to Obama levels. Obama has been in office for 4 years, FOUR YEARS! How long can you blame Bush? Fact of the matter is Obama's policies are not working. The economy sucks and it's Obama's economy.

Gas prices are more than doubled since he took office. His policies are not helping.

The main reason we use less oil is because the economy sucks! Obama's economy sucks and gas prices have doubled.

Another right wing parrot. Lets begin shall we?

The point of raising revenue is to do things like, I don't know, pay down the debt the right has been complaining about for only the last four years (or was the debt clock the republicans had at the RNC just a reminder to folks that they like to increase government spending only when they are in power) or maybe the increased revenue can be used to pay for programs that most people like such as medicare?

I already spoke to the capital gains tax in a previous post but Obama would raise them about 4% higher than what Clinton did. Bush lowered them 5% from where Clinton had them, how was Bush's job record by the way? So unless you have some new found data that shows a direct correlation between raising taxes (or just capital gains) hurts or helps the economy I'm not sure what your point was. Quick question for you though, do you pay capital gains tax? What does that equal in relation to your total tax burden?

With regards to the bank loans that the government "forced" banks to make, you are severely lacking in knowledge on the subject.

See the "Real deal" of this article relating to a moveon.org add to learn more about the subject. To blame the financial crisis on banks being forced to make loans is out right ignorance.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

If you lower capital gains tax rates you can grow an economy it has been proven. The Bush tax cuts did help create growth, the Clinton tax cut created growth. You are just wrong here.

Your gut tells you that but you have zero facts to back up your claim. And it's not just me that says there is no direct correlation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonard...l-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/

With regards to job growth, 40k-90k jobs a month is not enough, you are right but not enough does not equal negative growth or things getting worse, now is it (which is what the original reply was a response to).


With regards to Bush and his deficits, again you are completely lacking in the facts. Here are the facts with regards to Obama and the deficit/budgets.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

You also say Obamas policies are wrong, exactly what policies are wrong and why? I'm especially interested in hearing exactly how the president can affect gas prices. With regards to your "gas has doubled" point, again, your ignorance is showing.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/playing-politics-with-gasoline-prices/

See the "income loss" section.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/



Ill await your reply siting sources that back up your claims (my guess is that if you do respond your citations will have the words britebart in them)

 

[thelastjuju]

So, if even the mindless Conservative Talk listeners in here aren't swayed, I'm wondering if the level on which this is being judged a "win" really matters.

I'd be shocked if the right-wing talk radio crowd wasn't swayed by now.

Mitt Romney's Bain Capital owns the network, Clearchannel, where Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity dominate the airwaves.

:whiste:

BTW: As a tax accountant I was quite happy to see somebody finally call 'B.S." on the claim that we have tax loopholes for companies to move overseas. When Romney called BS after Obama made the claim, Obama looked completely lost to respond. He had nothing, it was as if he was shocked somebody would actually question that claim.

Fern

Actually, its one of those half truth kinda deals.

Even Fox News agrees this claim has some merit:

Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/

 

[zinfamous]

does talk of cutting PBS funding, which is less than a thousandth of a percentage point of federal spending, and represents only 5% or less of PBS budget, actually work with rednecks?

do they think their candidates are serious about this, and that it will actually cut spending, and/or that it will end ebil librul socialist content? (despite PBS and NPR roundly being recognized as the best, most unbiased programming in this country)?

You have to be brainless to think that Romney will ever cut funding to PBS. utterly brainless.

 

[ivwshane]

So what created the good economy in the late 90s? Higher income tax rate? No. It was a combination of spending cuts and capital gains tax cuts. The national debt is kicking our ass. You also have the Fed printing money like toilet paper diminishing capital. You wan't inflation I give you the F.E.D.

Reagan wasn't king he had democrat house and senates to deal with.

The record of the Reagan recovery is absolutely clear and Obama's recovery can't hold a candle to what happened in 81-84.

In which of my posts did I say tax increases grew the economy?
For years the right has been screaming, "inflation is coming! inflation is coming!" Where is it? The policies that are in place now have been in place for decades, the rates Obama is proposing have been in place before, your "the sky is falling" bullshit is just that, bullshit!

 

[Incorruptible]

The hits keep on coming from last nights historic debate.

Thats hilarious, that moron michelle thought her husband was going to win and he got decimated

michelle really needs to get her head checked

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Actually, its one of those half truth kinda deals.

Even Fox News agrees this claim has some merit:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/

That's not a loophole.

A company can get a deduction for moving to another state (or just down the road). Moving abroad is the same thing from the perspective of a valid business deduction.

And we still tax their profit after moving abroad.

If they unincorporate here and reincorporate abroad to avoid US tax they must pay what's called a "toll charge" under tax law.

Fern

 

[spidey07]

Historic? are you on crack?

the incumbent nearly always loses the first debate. Romney needed that one, by the way, and good for him.

It's no secret that he is getting assraped in every national poll.

It IS historic buttwhooping. We've not seen anything of this kind of embarrassment of a president since the carter/reagan debates.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Something I am curious on and wondering if anyone has seen some explanation for this. CNN did their post debate poll and according to the numbers only surveyed white southerners over 50.

I don't disagree in any way that Romney walked all over Obama but there has to be something wrong with how they are presenting the sample for the poll.

Anyone point me to something that covered this or explained it away?

 

[ivwshane]

the recession of 80-81 can't hold a candle to what happened in 2008-2009.

that being said, unemployment at the end of Reagan's term was about 2 points less than it was when he began his term, correct? ....which is about even with Obama in 4 years. just over 8% down to 6%

and with Obama: 10.5% to just over 8%, right?

Again, people like to ignore the convenient fact that the majority of people that are still unemployed are completely unskilled/untrained/inexperienced for the type fo jobs that this current economy has available.

The bubble of the 90s and 2000s was swelling with positions that were entirely redundant to the economy that we were becoming. There are literally 100s of thousands of jobs available in this country, with very few applicants. Why? because the old labor economy no longer exists. We've been pushing people towards education and tech for decades now, and we know have a rather high-tech, hi-skilled labor demand.

No president is going to be to just give these widely available jobs to people that are unqualified for them. The president can, however, encourage citizens to educate themselves, to re-educate themselves later in life, by providing and encouraging public incentives for such things.

Sadly this fact is missed on a lot on the right. They don't see the correlation between a lack of education and a lack of training and a changing economy and a high unemployment rate, which is also why cutting education seems perfectly acceptable to them. They have zero foresight and zero clue on how an economy really operates (they think having a large supply of something creates demand which is why they think tax cuts for businesses cause businesses to hire people).

 

[ivwshane]

Something I am curious on and wondering if anyone has seen some explanation for this. CNN did their post debate poll and according to the numbers only surveyed white southerners over 50.

I don't disagree in any way that Romney walked all over Obama but there has to be something wrong with how they are presenting the sample for the poll.

Anyone point me to something that covered this or explained it away?

I'm pretty sure it just means their sample size was super small.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm pretty sure it just means their sample size was super small.

It was 408 people I believe. It would be completely unrepresentative if accurate. I just can't see that sample demographic being accurate.