Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

 

[jamny]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

 

[The Commish]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

He's been floundering on the trail and to be honest, I didn't watch him closely during the primary debates with all the other crazy on the stage with him, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Apple Jack]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Obama came off tired and not ready to argue. Romney came off like an overly-cocky high school kid willing to say anything to get into a chick's pants.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So when do we get an Obama ad playing a clip from the primary, then the etch-a-sketch remark, followed by a contradiction from the debate?

 

[The Commish]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Obama came off tired and not ready to argue. Romney came off like an overly-cocky high school kid willing to say anything to get into a chick's pants.

Pretty much. Sad thing is, most folks of the soundbyte era isn't going to see the contrast. I personally didn't think he was "presidential". Neither guy was. All Romney's missing is the butterfly collared leisure suite with the shirt half unbuttoned and a cheesy gold necklace

 

[jamny]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

He's been floundering on the trail

In what way? From what I've seen, he's stayed consistant in his tone from Day 1. He's always upbeat and positive. I haven't seen him sag in his emotions or delivery on the trail.

 

[larry_boy_44]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

 

[The Commish]

So when do we get an Obama ad playing a clip from the primary, then the etch-a-sketch remark, followed by a contradiction from the debate?

Romney's campaign has been busy since the debate working the news circuits "clarifying" many of the things he said during the debate. They even felt it necessary to go to Fox as well. Will be interesting to see the ads that are to come.

 

[The Commish]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

He's been floundering on the trail

In what way? From what I've seen, he's stayed consistant in his tone from Day 1. He's always upbeat and positive. I haven't seen him sag in his emotions or delivery on the trail.

I'm not talking about his emotions. I'm talking about his message. There is no question that it changes day to day. NOW, we have a national benchmark to go from. It's just going to get worse. While he may stay upbeat in tone and positive, the message itself is muddled at best.

 

[jamny]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

He's been floundering on the trail

In what way? From what I've seen, he's stayed consistant in his tone from Day 1. He's always upbeat and positive. I haven't seen him sag in his emotions or delivery on the trail.

I'm not talking about his emotions. I'm talking about his message. There is no question that it changes day to day. NOW, we have a national benchmark to go from. It's just going to get worse. While he may stay upbeat in tone and positive, the message itself is muddled at best.

OK...I was talking about the person. Obama from the debate and the next day at the rally seems like two different people. You were saying Romney "wasn't himself" but I didn't see it.

 

[The Commish]

I loved seeing Obama speaking at a rally the next day. He's saying that it wasn't the real Romney at the debate but it definitely wasn't the same Obama. Like two different people.

He's as right as you are. Obama wasn't himself...neither was Romney. Where does that leave us?

Romney seemed like the same guy that was at the Republican debates and on the campaign trail. That didn't look like the same Obama at the debate, although there were indications of it during his uninspired Convention speech.

He's been floundering on the trail

In what way? From what I've seen, he's stayed consistant in his tone from Day 1. He's always upbeat and positive. I haven't seen him sag in his emotions or delivery on the trail.

I'm not talking about his emotions. I'm talking about his message. There is no question that it changes day to day. NOW, we have a national benchmark to go from. It's just going to get worse. While he may stay upbeat in tone and positive, the message itself is muddled at best.

OK...I was talking about the person. Obama from the debate and the next day at the rally seems like two different people. You were saying Romney "wasn't himself" but I didn't see it.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I don't know who Romney really is to say he was/wasn't himself. I've been presented several different versions several different times. I'm not sure which to use as the measuring stick.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

For someone who's clearly missing Leeroy's point, you should probably settle down with the "how is this so difficult to understand" shtick. In this economy, when all anyone wants to talk about is "jobs," a lot of people would dispute your contention that there is "nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas."

 

[LHUCKS]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

RAGONS:You don't get making debate points. Romney opened himself up. Can't fault you too much though, because apparently neither does Obama.

 

[larry_boy_44]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

For someone who's clearly missing Leeroy's point, you should probably settle down with the "how is this so difficult to understand" shtick. In this economy, when all anyone wants to talk about is "jobs," a lot of people would dispute your contention that there is "nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas."

I get Leeroy's point, the problem is he is missing what both Obama and Romney said.Obama said that there is a tax break you can take if you move jobs overseas. Romney flat out said that is untrue (and given Romney's background, I'd assume that is true).And I doubt you'd find any American anywhere who actually had an issue with ANY American company having employees in other countries for any reason, that's just a stupid way to look at things. (i.e. how could McDonald's open restaurants in other countries without employing people in those countries?). Not all manufacturing can be done in America, that's just the way it is, and the government should do more to encourage companies to keep jobs in America (and to encourage foreign companies to move jobs here), but none of that make Obama's statement about tax breaks true. Which is what Romney was talking about.I just don't think "You worked for a company that hired someone from China!!" is really as strong of a play as you guys seem to think it is.

 

[larry_boy_44]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

RAGONS:You don't get making debate points. Romney opened himself up. Can't fault you too much though, because apparently neither does Obama.

but Romney didn't open himself up, Obama did.Obama opened himself up to being shown how little he actually knows about business (and how much Romney actually does know about it).Obama made a statement about how business are run and taxed that was absolutely not true, and Romney called him out on it directly. Romney never said "I've never shipped a job overseas" because no person who's made as much money on a global scale as Romney could say that. Romney, however, did say that there is no American tax break given to companies in return for removing jobs from America and putting them in foreign countries.

 

[larry_boy_44]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

if it can bring LHUCKS and larry_boy_44 together, it should bring us all together!Romney/Ryan '12

 

[The Commish]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

yeah, not so much. While the rates appear to be out of whack with the global market, the loopholes MORE than make up for it. Going to the extreme if all the loopholes are closed and the tax rates are reduced to the global average, the net effect is still a tax liability increase. We'd have to go a good bit below the global average just to break even.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...

Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...

There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.

Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).

If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).

I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

RAGONS:You don't get making debate points. Romney opened himself up. Can't fault you too much though, because apparently neither does Obama.

but Romney didn't open himself up, Obama did.Obama opened himself up to being shown how little he actually knows about business (and how much Romney actually does know about it).

Obama made a statement about how business are run and taxed that was absolutely not true, and Romney called him out on it directly. Romney never said "I've never shipped a job overseas" because no person who's made as much money on a global scale as Romney could say that. Romney, however, did say that there is no American tax break given to companies in return for removing jobs from America and putting them in foreign countries.

Except that you do get a deduction for moving jobs from one place to another. It's just not specifically to overseas in the current tax code. What Obama proposes is eliminating the deduction for moving overseas rather that just within the USA.From FOX NEWS OF ALL PLACES:

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

However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies moving work out of America, as the president sometimes makes it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business.

That means a company can claim the deduction whether it's moving operations to Bangalore or Boston, to Kuala Lumpur or Kansas City.

"Any cost of doing business is deductible," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office who advised Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race. "There's no special (incentive to move jobs overseas)."

What Democrats want to do is end the deduction for firms moving overseas, in order to create a disincentive to offshore. What they say, though, makes it sound like the tax code is currently luring companies out of the U.S.

"But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States," Obama said Wednesday.

He went on to say: "Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue."

Closing the tax break just for those moving operations overseas does not necessarily mean a windfall of revenue. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated doing so would bring in $168 million over the next decade.

Romney countered at the debate that he wasn't familiar with the deduction.

"Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant," Romney said. "But the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case."

Obama was incredulous about that claim during a rally Thursday in Denver. "Never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas?" Obama told the crowd. He claimed the "real Mitt Romney" invested in "pioneers of outsourcing," suggesting he should know about the deduction.

Democrats have pushed legislation that would deny any tax deduction for opening up shop overseas at the expense of jobs in the U.S.

They have also pushed to eliminate the ability of companies to defer taxes on income earned overseas.

Holtz-Eakin said that's another piece of the tax code that Obama could have been referencing. Currently, U.S. companies operating overseas are supposed to pay both U.S. taxes and the taxes of the country they're operating in. To lessen the burden, U.S. tax code allows companies to defer the U.S. chunk of that until the money is brought back into America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/#ixzz28RAdKuMq

 

[larry_boy_44]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...

Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...

There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.

Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).

If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).

I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

RAGONS:You don't get making debate points. Romney opened himself up. Can't fault you too much though, because apparently neither does Obama.

but Romney didn't open himself up, Obama did.Obama opened himself up to being shown how little he actually knows about business (and how much Romney actually does know about it).

Obama made a statement about how business are run and taxed that was absolutely not true, and Romney called him out on it directly. Romney never said "I've never shipped a job overseas" because no person who's made as much money on a global scale as Romney could say that. Romney, however, did say that there is no American tax break given to companies in return for removing jobs from America and putting them in foreign countries.

Except that you do get a deduction for moving jobs from one place to another. It's just not specifically to overseas in the current tax code. What Obama proposes is eliminating the deduction for moving overseas rather that just within the USA.From FOX NEWS OF ALL PLACES:

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

However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies moving work out of America, as the president sometimes makes it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business.

That means a company can claim the deduction whether it's moving operations to Bangalore or Boston, to Kuala Lumpur or Kansas City.

"Any cost of doing business is deductible," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office who advised Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race. "There's no special (incentive to move jobs overseas)."

What Democrats want to do is end the deduction for firms moving overseas, in order to create a disincentive to offshore. What they say, though, makes it sound like the tax code is currently luring companies out of the U.S.

"But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States," Obama said Wednesday.

He went on to say: "Right now, you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue."

Closing the tax break just for those moving operations overseas does not necessarily mean a windfall of revenue. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated doing so would bring in $168 million over the next decade.

Romney countered at the debate that he wasn't familiar with the deduction.

"Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant," Romney said. "But the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case."

Obama was incredulous about that claim during a rally Thursday in Denver. "Never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas?" Obama told the crowd. He claimed the "real Mitt Romney" invested in "pioneers of outsourcing," suggesting he should know about the deduction.

Democrats have pushed legislation that would deny any tax deduction for opening up shop overseas at the expense of jobs in the U.S.

They have also pushed to eliminate the ability of companies to defer taxes on income earned overseas.

Holtz-Eakin said that's another piece of the tax code that Obama could have been referencing. Currently, U.S. companies operating overseas are supposed to pay both U.S. taxes and the taxes of the country they're operating in. To lessen the burden, U.S. tax code allows companies to defer the U.S. chunk of that until the money is brought back into America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/#ixzz28RAdKuMq

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

For someone who's clearly missing Leeroy's point, you should probably settle down with the "how is this so difficult to understand" shtick. In this economy, when all anyone wants to talk about is "jobs," a lot of people would dispute your contention that there is "nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas."

I get Leeroy's point, the problem is he is missing what both Obama and Romney said.Obama said that there is a tax break you can take if you move jobs overseas. Romney flat out said that is untrue (and given Romney's background, I'd assume that is true).And I doubt you'd find any American anywhere who actually had an issue with ANY American company having employees in other countries for any reason, that's just a stupid way to look at things. (i.e. how could McDonald's open restaurants in other countries without employing people in those countries?). Not all manufacturing can be done in America, that's just the way it is, and the government should do more to encourage companies to keep jobs in America (and to encourage foreign companies to move jobs here), but none of that make Obama's statement about tax breaks true. Which is what Romney was talking about.I just don't think "You worked for a company that hired someone from China!!" is really as strong of a play as you guys seem to think it is.

The point is that in this kind of debate, it doesn't matter how substantive, or even truthful, the points are. That's not how these things work. Obama's primary mistake (if his goal was to "win" the debate) was allowing Romney to go on, and stay on, the offensive. As LHUCKS likes to point out all the time (though apparently only when it supports whatever point he's trying to make at the time), the average voter is "stupid." They don't care about the nuances of corporate tax code. Debating Romney about the tax advantages of offshoring jobs isn't the point. They both play fast and loose with the truth, and it wouldn't matter which one of them was factually correct because they would each say the other was wrong and the average viewer wouldn't know the difference. In an election that's all about job creation, Romney making a comment about overseas jobs gave Obama a direct opening to bring up some Bain talking points, and he didn't. All night he failed to go on the attack with any of the major pre-debate talking points. (I think) that's all Leeroy's saying. I agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that it had to be a calculated decision by the Obama team. I agree he looked tired and worn out, but he didn't simply "forget" to mention these things - he's got a top-shelf team of people prepping him for weeks for these kinds of things, so what happened Wednesday night was largely, but not solely, the result of Romney's dominance. Why it went down the way it did is somewhat of a mystery. Whether or not any of it matters is yet to be determined.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...

Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...

There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

Not my point. It was an opportunity to slam him for Bain and him benefiting from companies in china doing work for pennies instead of here.

But that's not what Obama said in the first place, nor is it what Romney said.Obama said there were TAX BREAKS for moving jobs overseas.

Romney said that if that's true, he needs to find a new accountant (because, you know, his business hasn't been taking those tax breaks AS THEY DON'T EXIST).

If Obama would have said ANYTHING to Romney on that point, Romney would have ripped him for not knowing a thing about business (which, btw, is true).

I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. There is nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas, there are benefits and reason for doing so up to a point for sure (and after that it becomes more debatable). To act otherwise just shows that you are out of touch with reality.

For someone who's clearly missing Leeroy's point, you should probably settle down with the "how is this so difficult to understand" shtick. In this economy, when all anyone wants to talk about is "jobs," a lot of people would dispute your contention that there is "nothing wrong with American companies having plants/jobs overseas."

I get Leeroy's point, the problem is he is missing what both Obama and Romney said.Obama said that there is a tax break you can take if you move jobs overseas. Romney flat out said that is untrue (and given Romney's background, I'd assume that is true).

And I doubt you'd find any American anywhere who actually had an issue with ANY American company having employees in other countries for any reason, that's just a stupid way to look at things. (i.e. how could McDonald's open restaurants in other countries without employing people in those countries?). Not all manufacturing can be done in America, that's just the way it is, and the government should do more to encourage companies to keep jobs in America (and to encourage foreign companies to move jobs here), but none of that make Obama's statement about tax breaks true. Which is what Romney was talking about.

I just don't think "You worked for a company that hired someone from China!!" is really as strong of a play as you guys seem to think it is.

The point is that in this kind of debate, it doesn't matter how substantive, or even truthful, the points are. That's not how these things work. Obama's primary mistake (if his goal was to "win" the debate) was allowing Romney to go on, and stay on, the offensive. As LHUCKS likes to point out all the time (though apparently only when it supports whatever point he's trying to make at the time), the average voter is "stupid." They don't care about the nuances of corporate tax code. Debating Romney about the tax advantages of offshoring jobs isn't the point. They both play fast and loose with the truth, and it wouldn't matter which one of them was factually correct because they would each say the other was wrong and the average viewer wouldn't know the difference. In an election that's all about job creation, Romney making a comment about overseas jobs gave Obama a direct opening to bring up some Bain talking points, and he didn't. All night he failed to go on the attack with any of the major pre-debate talking points. (I think) that's all Leeroy's saying. I agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that it had to be a calculated decision by the Obama team. I agree he looked tired and worn out, but he didn't simply "forget" to mention these things - he's got a top-shelf team of people prepping him for weeks for these kinds of things, so what happened Wednesday night was largely, but not solely, the result of Romney's dominance. Why it went down the way it did is somewhat of a mystery. Whether or not any of it matters is yet to be determined.

Exactly. And the fact that even fox news fact check favors Obama on the point itself makes it even worse. Larry here isn't exactly a guy who bases his beliefs on facts though. Seems to be using the Romney debate strategy in the thread.

 

[The Commish]

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.

Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

It's very dangerous and naive to think Romney's going to bite the hand that feeds him personally....just sayin'. Yeah, he's talked about closing loopholes, but never come close to indicating which ones. I wouldn't feel comfortable making the assumptions you are making here. This is politics and personal wealth we are talking about here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

It's not simply "Dems" that are out to lunch here. It's the "average voter" that you love to denigrate when it suits your purpose. In an election that's largely about job creation in the US, the average voter is less interested in the economic implications to a corporation for moving jobs overseas, and more interested in "US JOBS GOOD CHINA JOBS BAD." It's easy soundbite material, and the Obama campaign is obviously aware of this because they've referenced Romney's connections to it in TV ads. Why he chose not to broach the subject during the debate has obviously puzzled some in the media, at least.

 

[Don Quixote]

 

[Slapdash]

Unemployment down to 7.8%, lowest since Jan. 2009. That should put a stop to negative press from the debate. Waiting for conspiracy theories to start.

Check out the unemployment thread for conspiracy amusement.

 

[jon_mx]

Can we all agree that Tim is the closest thing on this forum to the average voter.

 

[saintfool]

actually that is a stack of hundred-dollar bills that Mitt was hoping to wager mid-debate.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can we all agree that Tim is the closest thing on this forum to the average voter.

No. To be fair to Tim he's much more intelligent than the average voter. He tends to form rash opinions with little basis in fact or logic but I don't doubt his intelligence and ability to reason.

 

[dparker713]

I'll take the smart guy that actually has a grasp of the complex topics at hand and is well versed in running an organization and leadership.

This description can only fit one candidate. When did you decide to change your vote to Obama?

 

[timschochet]

Can we all agree that Tim is the closest thing on this forum to the average voter.

No. To be fair to Tim he's much more intelligent than the average voter. He tends to form rash opinions with little basis in fact or logic but I don't doubt his intelligence and ability to reason.

 

[dparker713]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

Not providing an incentive is not the same as punishing. HTH.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I'll take the smart guy that actually has a grasp of the complex topics at hand and is well versed in running an organization and leadership.

This description can only fit one candidate. When did you decide to change your vote to Obama?

He has shown he has a grasp of the complex topic of how many states are in the United States.

 

[LHUCKS]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

Not providing an incentive is not the same as punishing. HTH.

It depends on the degree of the incentive.

 

[LHUCKS]

It's not simply "Dems" that are out to lunch here. It's the "average voter"

I've been saying this for years.See my Churchill sig

 

[NYG Endzone]

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/05/no-mitt-romney-did-not-bring-cheat-notes-to-the-debate

 

[dparker713]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

Not providing an incentive is not the same as punishing. HTH.

It depends on the degree of the incentive.

Not it doesn't. One is a benefit conferred upon someone, the other is a detriment conferred upon someone. Opposites.

 

[saintfool]

 

[Mello]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

I understand. Just don't care. American workers are at a disadvantage to their competition overseas. I care more about the American workers than about American companies being able to get wealthier and wealthier. The two should work together, but the availability of cheap non-American labor has disconnected them.

 

[adonis]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

This is awesome. Too bad it's too long for a sig.

It seemed obvious to me at least, that my post was a joke.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.

Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

It's very dangerous and naive to think Romney's going to bite the hand that feeds him personally....just sayin'. Yeah, he's talked about closing loopholes, but never come close to indicating which ones. I wouldn't feel comfortable making the assumptions you are making here. This is politics and personal wealth we are talking about here.

If he doesn't, on some level, "bite the hand that feeds him" then there is no more tax code for him to reform...I don't see how we can take what he says as either he is 100% lying and he has no intention on doing anything he is saying (i.e. he's a sociopath to a ridiculous level and we're screwed if he is even capable of running for office and hiding how bad he is) or that he is, on some level, going to "bite the hand that feeds him" and close some of the loopholes he has personally taken advantage of in the past...

 

[dparker713]

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.

Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

It's very dangerous and naive to think Romney's going to bite the hand that feeds him personally....just sayin'. Yeah, he's talked about closing loopholes, but never come close to indicating which ones. I wouldn't feel comfortable making the assumptions you are making here. This is politics and personal wealth we are talking about here.

If he doesn't, on some level, "bite the hand that feeds him" then there is no more tax code for him to reform...I don't see how we can take what he says as either he is 100% lying and he has no intention on doing anything he is saying (i.e. he's a sociopath to a ridiculous level and we're screwed if he is even capable of running for office and hiding how bad he is) or that he is, on some level, going to "bite the hand that feeds him" and close some of the loopholes he has personally taken advantage of in the past...

Well, CEOs are much more likely to be sociopaths than the population at large...

 

[LHUCKS]

American companies are at a disadvantage if their competition if offshoring and using low cost labor and they are punished via taxes if they are not.I don't know why this is hard to understand. This is where Dems are out to lunch on basic economics.

I understand. Just don't care.

You should, over the long term it's disadvantageous to this country.

 

[The Commish]

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.

Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

It's very dangerous and naive to think Romney's going to bite the hand that feeds him personally....just sayin'. Yeah, he's talked about closing loopholes, but never come close to indicating which ones. I wouldn't feel comfortable making the assumptions you are making here. This is politics and personal wealth we are talking about here.

If he doesn't, on some level, "bite the hand that feeds him" then there is no more tax code for him to reform...I don't see how we can take what he says as either he is 100% lying and he has no intention on doing anything he is saying (i.e. he's a sociopath to a ridiculous level and we're screwed if he is even capable of running for office and hiding how bad he is) or that he is, on some level, going to "bite the hand that feeds him" and close some of the loopholes he has personally taken advantage of in the past...

I've not said anything of the sort. I simply believe that he will look to everything BUT the things he benefits from. Call me a skeptic, but history shows this approach to be very popular amongst politicians.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Just so everyone is on the same page, corporations can deduct the business expenses of moving jobs/ operations from onshore to offshore. They can also deduct those expenses if they move from one domestic location to another.

So there's no special deduction for moving jobs overseas, but businesses can get a tax "break" for doing so. Of course taxes are generally inconsequential in those decisions, which I'm sure both candidates know.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Just so everyone is on the same page, corporations can deduct the business expenses of moving jobs/ operations from onshore to offshore. They can also deduct those expenses if they move from one domestic location to another. So there's no special deduction for moving jobs overseas, but businesses can get a tax "break" for doing so. Of course taxes are generally inconsequential in those decisions, which I'm sure both candidates know.

Right. The Obama position is to not allow businesses to deduct those expenses if the jobs/operations are moving overseas, to leave the deduction intact when moving within the USA.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I could have swore I just watched Romney talk for an hour and a half to a disinterested Democrat about how he wanted to close loopholes in the tax code.

Pretty sure Romney is aware of that loophole, and I'm also pretty sure if Obama would have called him on it, Romney would have explained what the loophole actually is and that it isn't what Obama was saying it is (even if it can work that way).

Oh and as far as not charging taxes on money earned overseas by American companies... Well, if you need to have that explained to you to understand why that's necessary than I can't help you. But that has to happen or American companies won't be able to operate internationally. Modern companies take way too much money for a business to be able to survive being double taxed on any revenue earned in a foreign country.

It's very dangerous and naive to think Romney's going to bite the hand that feeds him personally....just sayin'. Yeah, he's talked about closing loopholes, but never come close to indicating which ones. I wouldn't feel comfortable making the assumptions you are making here. This is politics and personal wealth we are talking about here.

If he doesn't, on some level, "bite the hand that feeds him" then there is no more tax code for him to reform...I don't see how we can take what he says as either he is 100% lying and he has no intention on doing anything he is saying (i.e. he's a sociopath to a ridiculous level and we're screwed if he is even capable of running for office and hiding how bad he is) or that he is, on some level, going to "bite the hand that feeds him" and close some of the loopholes he has personally taken advantage of in the past...

I've not said anything of the sort. I simply believe that he will look to everything BUT the things he benefits from. Call me a skeptic, but history shows this approach to be very popular amongst politicians.

But with the money he has, which loopholes aren't he taking advantage of?I'm just saying there are people saying there aren't enough loopholes at all for him to close and make a dent in the cuts he is proposing (and he's saying they'll even out), so how can there possibly be enough if he doesn't close the ones people who are ridiculously wealthy abuse/use?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Just so everyone is on the same page, corporations can deduct the business expenses of moving jobs/ operations from onshore to offshore. They can also deduct those expenses if they move from one domestic location to another. So there's no special deduction for moving jobs overseas, but businesses can get a tax "break" for doing so. Of course taxes are generally inconsequential in those decisions, which I'm sure both candidates know.

Right. The Obama position is to not allow businesses to deduct those expenses if the jobs/operations are moving overseas, to leave the deduction intact when moving within the USA.

I don't see how it can be justified to do one but not both...I mean, why is moving from Wisconsin to Tennessee covered, but moving from Wisconsin to India not? They both hurt Wisconsin just as much...

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

YES, larryboy!