Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:

"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

 

[snogger]

Yes, Romney's idea seems to be that we can have everything we can have our cake and eat it to, as long as we do [redacted].

That's how you get elected. You've got all your lemmings voting for you. You need to bring some Ds on board and convince all the remaining Rs that you are not blowing smoke up their asses without laughing. Win and then make excuses.

worked for Obama.

 

[oso diablo]

In the era of constant filibuster, this is hardly an astounding occurrence. Obama seems unwilling to point out Congress being an black hole of misery, but that explains it.

you cannot filibuster a budget bill

 

[Tau837]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

And that's everything in this discussion. There aren't enough loopholes and deductions to close for the rich alone to cover an across the board 20% tax cut and hike in military spending. It cannot be done. If you start lopping off mortgage deductions for everyone, now you're making progress. Mitt claims he won't do that. Sorry, you'll have to put some of the burden on the middle class to make the numbers work.

You'll have to put some of the burden on the middle class if we're ever going to get back to a good place fiscally. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or incompetent. Unfortunately, when you are running for political office, you can't be honest about that. If a presidential candidate tried to run on the truth, his campaign would be dead in the water.

Right...so his answer/plan really isn't an answer/plan at all but somehow the $5 trillion still isn't 5 trillion in Romney's mind

It's more complex than that. What if a tax rate decrease results in more employment and more people paying taxes? Then it really isn't a tax decrease in the amount of what existing taxpayers are paying, because you have to factor in the new tax revenue that is generated.

It's still a shift in burden to the middle class (which he's said won't happen). It's just now, with a larger middle class the "per person" amount is smaller, however, the overall burden of that segment of the population has increased. Again, he said he wouldn't increase the burden on the middle class.

Seems pretty obvious to me that not increasing the burden on the middle class refers to the burden per person/family. Increasing the size of the middle class, and thereby increasing the total tax revenue from the middle class does not equate to increasing the burden on the middle class.To argue otherwise is to suggest that increasing unemployment in the middle class is lessening the burden on the middle class.

 

[Joe T]

What continues to baffle me is the insistence that tax cuts drive growth as if this is an economic law. If you plot the marginal income tax rates versus GDP growth, they show no correlation. It's a nice idea, though.

what is the r-squared?

I don't have the raw data, but here is one plot: My link

Sorry, I'll need the raw data before I allow this.

 

[dparker713]

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

More nonsense, or are you really this clueless about our tax code?

Are you really that clueless about asset investing versus consumer spending and the lower cap gains rate?

 

[Joe T]

What continues to baffle me is the insistence that tax cuts drive growth as if this is an economic law. If you plot the marginal income tax rates versus GDP growth, they show no correlation. It's a nice idea, though.

what is the r-squared?

I don't have the raw data, but here is one plot: My link

by the way, that is one of the most poorly formatted charts I've ever seen.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What continues to baffle me is the insistence that tax cuts drive growth as if this is an economic law. If you plot the marginal income tax rates versus GDP growth, they show no correlation. It's a nice idea, though.

what is the r-squared?

I don't have the raw data, but here is one plot: My link

Sorry, I'll need the raw data before I allow this.

 

[saintfool]

i think the best thing about this debate from Romney's perspective is that he got the chance to talk to the public on a large platform unfiltered by the Obama campaign or the liberal media spinmeisters. If you haven't been paying much attention to the campaigns so far, maybe saw a few commericals or a few nightly news casts, you would probably have the impression that Romney was a gaffe machine and a heartless *******. But you can't spin what you saw last night, at least not in real time, so those same people that are what you would call low-information voters, saw a guy that had a confident positive look on his face, spoke clearly and with authority and seemed very likable.

they saw a guy perform well in a debate because he wasn't called to the mat on anything by either the moderator or the incumbent. he was essentially given a free pass.

 

[Joe T]

What continues to baffle me is the insistence that tax cuts drive growth as if this is an economic law. If you plot the marginal income tax rates versus GDP growth, they show no correlation. It's a nice idea, though.

what is the r-squared?

I don't have the raw data, but here is one plot: My link

Also, one more thing, the plot shows that most of the time taxes were cut GDP growth spikes. So thanks for posting it.

 

[dparker713]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

This is the same discredited theory that led to 1929 and 2008.

The velocity of money slowing down is what led to both 1929 and 2008.With more than 15% of the working capable people in the country not earning income, and paying income tax, increasing the velocity of money has a great opportunity of producing real growth and increasing tax revenues.

However, when very few working capable people in the country are not working, increasing the velocity of money has very little chance at producing growth and tax revenues.

Ahh, so trickle down couldn't work in 2008 because things were already falling apart, but now that they have fallen apart it'll work brilliantly!

Trickle down has never worked.But it's a moot point given Romney is not proposing trickle down economics. Taxing the rich more and the middle class less is NOT trickle down economics. It's the opposite of it, despite how many of you suggest that it's the same.

Find me 5T in loopholes to close that do not include anything from the middle class.

 

[cstu]

Yes, Romney's idea seems to be that we can have everything we can have our cake and eat it to, as long as we do [redacted].

That's how you get elected. You've got all your lemmings voting for you. You need to bring some Ds on board and convince all the remaining Rs that you are not blowing smoke up their asses without laughing. Win and then make excuses.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

I don't think that's much of an opening when the easy response is, "the economy was strong because we had a balanced approach that had wealthier Americans paying a slightly higher share, while still promoting growth through middle class tax cuts and gradually bringing spending in line. The result was a balanced budget and the strongest economy we've seen in the last 50 years. It's also exactly what my plan is, while my opponent wants to go back to approach that ended that economy and brought us to the collapse of 2008.:

 

[dparker713]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

And that's everything in this discussion. There aren't enough loopholes and deductions to close for the rich alone to cover an across the board 20% tax cut and hike in military spending. It cannot be done. If you start lopping off mortgage deductions for everyone, now you're making progress. Mitt claims he won't do that. Sorry, you'll have to put some of the burden on the middle class to make the numbers work.

You'll have to put some of the burden on the middle class if we're ever going to get back to a good place fiscally. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or incompetent. Unfortunately, when you are running for political office, you can't be honest about that. If a presidential candidate tried to run on the truth, his campaign would be dead in the water.

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

If your job paid you more and you didn't do anything differently, you'd pay more. If you invested and gained some if your income from capital gains, you'd pay less. Maybe you need to start giving more to charity.

Bambi is hotter than Charity, and I give her plenty already.

 

[oso diablo]

I think last night showed that a)Mitt himself really is a pretty good candidate but b)his campaign is absolutely terrible.

aren't debates a non-minor part of a campaign?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

A regular refrain the past couple of years is that the US debt has been shaking investor and business confidence so indirectly, yes. The economy could have been good (or partly attributable) to higher taxes.

Fair answer. But we were already coming out of recession before Clinton took office.And aren't you one of the guys that says that that reasoning is invalid. That investor confidence has actually stayed up?Anyway, I have come to believe that the Clinton tax plan was right for the time. Duplicating it in these times however seems the wrong plan.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I think last night showed that a)Mitt himself really is a pretty good candidate but b)his campaign is absolutely terrible.

aren't debates a non-minor part of a campaign?

It's debatable.

 

[17seconds]

Worst debate performance last night (by far): Jim Lehrer

The guy never asked a pointed question to either candidate. He never prefaced a question with a specific problem the candidate has had during the campaign.

to paraphrase him...

"OK we're going to talk about taxes now... GO!"

"Let's talk about healthcare..."

"How about the deficit, what are you going to do there guys"

horrible

People last night loved to be hating on Lehrer but if you watched the debate and edited out anywhere Lehrer appeared, it was a really good one. The time was sufficient for them both to give full answers to issues and do some back-and-forth. Maybe that was just the format that was negotiated, I don't know. But if you judge the umpire by the game that was played, Lehrer actually did well.

That makes no sense to me. It's not the time Lehrer had on camera that bothered me, it's the fact that he did not moderate the debate. He just let the candidates freeflow. With Romney going to the center and Obama sitting back on defense, it made for a pretty boring debate. Lehrer needed recognize that and step in to ask some pointed questions to distinguish them. Watching that debate I got the feeling Romney and Obama are good buddies with some friendly differences on tax policy.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

I don't think that's much of an opening when the easy response is, "the economy was strong because we had a balanced approach that had wealthier Americans paying a slightly higher share, while still promoting growth through middle class tax cuts and gradually bringing spending in line. The result was a balanced budget and the strongest economy we've seen in the last 50 years. It's also exactly what my plan is, while my opponent wants to go back to approach that ended that economy and brought us to the collapse of 2008.:

That's not the easy answer because there's a huge difference between increasing taxation on an economy in the upswing vs. increasing taxation on a moribund one.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What continues to baffle me is the insistence that tax cuts drive growth as if this is an economic law. If you plot the marginal income tax rates versus GDP growth, they show no correlation. It's a nice idea, though.

what is the r-squared?

I don't have the raw data, but here is one plot: My link

Also, one more thing, the plot shows that most of the time taxes were cut GDP growth spikes. So thanks for posting it.

You might want to recheck that plot.

 

[snogger]

from overseas:

"Obama showed a lack of desire to be president, which could put him on shaky ground as a presidential candidate," said liberal German news magazine Der Spiegel.

"It's now clear that to get back into the White House the U.S. president needs running shoes, not flip-flops."

that might explain the constant looking down at his shoes..

 

[cstu]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

I don't think that's much of an opening when the easy response is, "the economy was strong because we had a balanced approach that had wealthier Americans paying a slightly higher share, while still promoting growth through middle class tax cuts and gradually bringing spending in line. The result was a balanced budget and the strongest economy we've seen in the last 50 years. It's also exactly what my plan is, while my opponent wants to go back to approach that ended that economy and brought us to the collapse of 2008.:

That's not the easy answer because there's a huge difference between increasing taxation on an economy in the upswing vs. increasing taxation on a moribund one.

The economy was in recession or immediate aftermath when taxes were raised on upper income earners both times in the early 90's.

 

[Mello]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

It won't work. We've been doing this. Too many of those jobs that are created are overseas and help no one except those that already have money and foreigners.

Small businesses don't send jobs overseas. Romney's plan isn't corporate friendly at all. They will at the very least keep paying the same amount of taxes, and probably more. It's the middle class that will pay less. This has been Obama's calling card for years now. There's not a big difference between what Obama and Romney want to accomplish. In both instances the rich will pay more and the middle class will pay less.

The analysis I've read that says this isn't true seems a lot more credible. He's been saying he's going to cut tax rates across the board.

 

[Politician Spock]

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

This is the same discredited theory that led to 1929 and 2008.

The velocity of money slowing down is what led to both 1929 and 2008.With more than 15% of the working capable people in the country not earning income, and paying income tax, increasing the velocity of money has a great opportunity of producing real growth and increasing tax revenues.

However, when very few working capable people in the country are not working, increasing the velocity of money has very little chance at producing growth and tax revenues.

Ahh, so trickle down couldn't work in 2008 because things were already falling apart, but now that they have fallen apart it'll work brilliantly!

Trickle down has never worked.But it's a moot point given Romney is not proposing trickle down economics. Taxing the rich more and the middle class less is NOT trickle down economics. It's the opposite of it, despite how many of you suggest that it's the same.

Find me 5T in loopholes to close that do not include anything from the middle class.

The "all or none" argument again.

 

[dparker713]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

I think you know better than this. No one seriously believes that you can cut taxes by Trillions from our current rate levels and see that revenue replaced through growth.

No one seriously believes the federal government can keep spending at astronomical levels, continue to create more programs and pay for it all with tax increases.

You do realize Obama articulated a plan to cut 2.5 dollars for every dollar in tax increases, right? Now I don't think that's a high enough ratio, but he's hardly talking about paying for everything with just tax increases.

Interesting. Where is this articulated plan?

Pretty sure it looks something like this

 

[Politician Spock]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

Reminds me of when Obama said he was going to make government "more transparent", cut the deficit in half, etc, etc... Some people will believe anything.

 

[John Bender]

Tracking the use of the smiley here. Can someone post an updated count?

We've got a little wager going on the over under.

Thanks.

 

[17seconds]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

No matter how many ways Mitt flip-flops with the message, his #1 goal is to give the wealthy more money. Anything to do with the middle or lower classes is a consequence (in theory) of that #1 goal. Everything must flow through rich people first.

 

[cstu]

I'm a little surprised that most of my co-workers I've talked this morning had such a lukewarm reaction to the debate mentioning how it was painfully boring and lacking specifics.

Sounds about what I'd expect. When it comes down to it, a lot of undecided people are going to vote for the guy who it already President. I couldn't believe it in 2004 just as Republicans will be shocked by it in 2012.

 

[Thunderlips]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

Reminds me of when Obama said he was going to make government "more transparent", cut the deficit in half, etc, etc... Some people will believe anything.

I guess we shouldn't believe any politicans then.

 

[jonessed]

Worst debate performance last night (by far): Jim Lehrer

The guy never asked a pointed question to either candidate. He never prefaced a question with a specific problem the candidate has had during the campaign.

to paraphrase him...

"OK we're going to talk about taxes now... GO!"

"Let's talk about healthcare..."

"How about the deficit, what are you going to do there guys"

horrible

People last night loved to be hating on Lehrer but if you watched the debate and edited out anywhere Lehrer appeared, it was a really good one. The time was sufficient for them both to give full answers to issues and do some back-and-forth. Maybe that was just the format that was negotiated, I don't know. But if you judge the umpire by the game that was played, Lehrer actually did well.

That makes no sense to me. It's not the time Lehrer had on camera that bothered me, it's the fact that he did not moderate the debate. He just let the candidates freeflow. With Romney going to the center and Obama sitting back on defense, it made for a pretty boring debate. Lehrer needed recognize that and step in to ask some pointed questions to distinguish them. Watching that debate I got the feeling Romney and Obama are good buddies with some friendly differences on tax policy.

That's such a load of horse####. Obama and Romney agreed on very little and Lehrer took the time to point it out several times. It wasn't a heated debate filled with zingers and condemnation, it was more of a policy debate. You may find that boring, but faulting Lehrer for maintaing a civil, informative debate is absurd. It's not Lehrer's job to jump in and save Obama from himself. Lehrer actually gave Obama the extra time to solidify his points and he chose to ramble with it.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

I don't think that's much of an opening when the easy response is, "the economy was strong because we had a balanced approach that had wealthier Americans paying a slightly higher share, while still promoting growth through middle class tax cuts and gradually bringing spending in line. The result was a balanced budget and the strongest economy we've seen in the last 50 years. It's also exactly what my plan is, while my opponent wants to go back to approach that ended that economy and brought us to the collapse of 2008.:

That's not the easy answer because there's a huge difference between increasing taxation on an economy in the upswing vs. increasing taxation on a moribund one.

The economy was in recession or immediate aftermath when taxes were raised on upper income earners both times in the early 90's.

Which years are you talking about?

 

[cubd8]

Rachel maddow doesn't know who won. Jesus oboma got killed

Remember, she's not a partisan. She's an analyst who happens to side with far left Democrats on every issue.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so as a non political guy,and a guy who didnt watch, who won?

 

[jonessed]

Interesting. Where is this articulated plan?

Pretty sure it looks something like this

An average of less than $35B a year in cuts for 10 years. That's the big plan?

 

[dparker713]

The "all or none" argument again.

Romney fixed the amount that needs to get closed. He could have a plan that will only lower rates as far as the loopholes he closes can support. But thats not what he's said. Hell, he doesn't even need to get all the way to 5T, but he needs to get in the ballpark atleast to even begin to consider growth as the final factor in paying for the 20% reduction.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tracking the use of the smiley here. Can someone post an updated count?We've got a little wager going on the over under.Thanks.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The "all or none" argument again.

What am I missing?--Romney is proposing tax cuts that result in $5T in lost revenue to the government.--Romney says that 100% for sure his tax cut will be revenue neutral.--He says he's going to make it revenue neutral by 'closing loopholes.'--There aren't $5T in loopholes to close. And there's no way in hell he'll be able to close all of them in any event.The 'all or nothing' is whether what Romney says he'll do is possible. And it's not. And he knows it.

 

[17seconds]

Worst debate performance last night (by far): Jim Lehrer

The guy never asked a pointed question to either candidate. He never prefaced a question with a specific problem the candidate has had during the campaign.

to paraphrase him...

"OK we're going to talk about taxes now... GO!"

"Let's talk about healthcare..."

"How about the deficit, what are you going to do there guys"

horrible

People last night loved to be hating on Lehrer but if you watched the debate and edited out anywhere Lehrer appeared, it was a really good one. The time was sufficient for them both to give full answers to issues and do some back-and-forth. Maybe that was just the format that was negotiated, I don't know. But if you judge the umpire by the game that was played, Lehrer actually did well.

That makes no sense to me. It's not the time Lehrer had on camera that bothered me, it's the fact that he did not moderate the debate. He just let the candidates freeflow. With Romney going to the center and Obama sitting back on defense, it made for a pretty boring debate. Lehrer needed recognize that and step in to ask some pointed questions to distinguish them. Watching that debate I got the feeling Romney and Obama are good buddies with some friendly differences on tax policy.

That's such a load of horse####. Obama and Romney agreed on very little and Lehrer took the time to point it out several times. It wasn't a heated debate filled with zingers and condemnation, it was more of a policy debate. You may find that boring, but faulting Lehrer for maintaing a civil, informative debate is absurd. It's not Lehrer's job to jump in and save Obama from himself. Lehrer actually gave Obama the extra time to solidify his points and he chose to ramble with it.

He pointed it out but he didn't get anywhere with it. The reason he pointed it out is because they weren't differentiating themselves enough. I've already heard clips today of them agreeing with each other over a dozen times. A big reason why Obama lost is because he and Romney merged on too many ideas.What did Lehrer have to do to maintain civility? Neither candidate came close to being uncivil.

I don't know where you get "saving Obama from himself". I think Lehrer blundered a couple times by confirming Obama's ideas for him. He showed some liberal bias.

 

[CrossEyed]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

Reminds me of when Obama said he was going to make government "more transparent", cut the deficit in half, etc, etc... Some people will believe anything.

I guess we shouldn't believe any politicans then.

Now you're catching on.

 

[datonn]

Watched the debate at midnight (CST) last night...since I didn't catch it the first time around. I was pleasantly surprised with Romney and how engaging and energetic he was. He had his talking points down cold, and came off as a reasonable, thoughtful individual. Obama, on the other hand, came off looking tired and beaten-down a bit. Very intelligent and passionate (conceptually) in his responses, but just not energetic or emotionally engaging. Shocked me a bit...as I expected the exact opposite.

With that in mind, I thought that either Obama or the moderator let a *lot* of stuff slide related to Romney's claims and positions. I didn't like that Obama kept going back to the well with "it's simple math..." when discussing Romney's tax cuts and increased military spending...since Romney is obviously betting the farm on said activities growing revenue via less unemployment and rising incomes. I think Romney's plan is flawed, but a high school student taking an economics class can at least tell you where Romney's getting his "tax-neutral" ideas.

I liked how Romney left any mention of religion off the table until the very end (talking about us living under one God)...though if Obama could have slipped Lehrer a benjamin or two to extend the debate and ask Romney to elaborate on his Mormon faith (from the moderator's seat, so Obama didn't have to), that would have been must-see TV. Particularly coming off-script.

I still think Romney/Ryan would be a train-wreck long-term for our nation...but it was pretty clear that Romney won the evening. Kind of good news, bad news. Good news in that it'll make the next debates and the rest of the way until November a LOT more interesting! Bad news in the fact that Romney still has a decent shot of pulling the election out.

Spoken as an Independent (former moderate Republican) who voted Obama in 2008 and will vote Obama again in 2012.

 

[jomar]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....

Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?

I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away.

if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

 

[cstu]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

Reminds me of when Obama said he was going to make government "more transparent", cut the deficit in half, etc, etc... Some people will believe anything.

Government transparencyObama was already President when he would cut the deficit in half. Some extraordinary things were happening at that time to prevent it, don't you think?

 

[datonn]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Revenue-neutral in the macro-sense and short-term...but he's banking on it being a stimulator related to job growth with small businesses, since 54% (?) of small business owners would actually see a reduction in their rate, since they are taxed at an individual rate vs. a corporate rate. I think that was his point.

 

[cstu]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....

Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?

I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away.

if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

To get him elected?

 

[dparker713]

Interesting. Where is this articulated plan?

Pretty sure it looks something like this

An average of $35B a year in cuts for 10 years. That's the big plan?

1.1 trillion from war savings577 billion from spending cuts and revenue raising changes in mandatory programs

624 billion from interest savings

992 billion for the 2011 budget agreement

Its not line item specific, but its atleast somewhat detailed.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

I don't think that's much of an opening when the easy response is, "the economy was strong because we had a balanced approach that had wealthier Americans paying a slightly higher share, while still promoting growth through middle class tax cuts and gradually bringing spending in line. The result was a balanced budget and the strongest economy we've seen in the last 50 years. It's also exactly what my plan is, while my opponent wants to go back to approach that ended that economy and brought us to the collapse of 2008.:

That's not the easy answer because there's a huge difference between increasing taxation on an economy in the upswing vs. increasing taxation on a moribund one.

The economy was in recession or immediate aftermath when taxes were raised on upper income earners both times in the early 90's.

Which years are you talking about?

'90 and '93 right? I'm going to have to go do work for a while so I'll let everyone in here carry on.

 

[cstu]

Revenue-neutral in the macro-sense and short-term...but he's banking on it being a stimulator related to job growth with small businesses, since 54% (?) of small business owners would actually see a reduction in their rate, since they are taxes at an individual rate vs. a corporate rate. I think that was his point.

He's also banking on people forgetting about his plan to cut loopholes. Also, he's never said he won't create new loopholes.

 

[jonessed]

Interesting. Where is this articulated plan?

Pretty sure it looks something like this

An average of $35B a year in cuts for 10 years. That's the big plan?

1.1 trillion from war savings577 billion from spending cuts and revenue raising changes in mandatory programs

624 billion from interest savings

992 billion for the 2011 budget agreement

Its not line item specific, but its atleast somewhat detailed.

That's the only real savings in this plan and your article points out it's really only $310B.Fuzzy math indeed.