Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (3 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

 

[jamny]

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

yeah, that's what it was.

 

[dparker713]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

Last night, Romney articulated as much fiscal responsibility as Dubya.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

 

[CrossEyed]

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

And honestly, what kind of man schedules a debate on his anniversary? That blunder will probably cost him some of the female vote.

 

[Jim11]

Truth matters

Well then the subject of Lybia in the next debate ought to be fun.

Some truth is classified.

Some truth is classified not because it should be, but because it will reflect badly on the administration regarding Libya, from the lack of security despite warnings, to the initial claim that it was a planned terrorist attack.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Romney's campaign has told us they will not be dictated to by fact checkers, and from what he said last night he obviously meant it too.

Another lie:

Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits

 

[Mr. Pickles]

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.

 

[dparker713]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership

Enacted tax cuts which were never paid for

2 wars, 1 of choice

Prescription drug benefit

No Child Left Behind

Gutted the SEC budget

Gutted bankruptcy law

Thats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Relaxing of the lending standards was an SEC action. Supposedly an independant non-partisan quasi-regualatory agency, but the chairmans are appointed by the president, so there is some accountability there for Bush. Greenspan did a reasonably good job. He kept the economy moving. He could have put us in a recession, but that would have just made the bubble burst sooner. Your other points had no bearing what so ever on the housing bubble and financial crisis, just your partisan hackery that you threw which contributed nothing.

The SEC has nothing to do with lending standards. Fannie and Freddie do. And Greenspan admitted himself that his philosophy was

 

[Slapdash]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

 

[JNox3]

I really don't follow politics that much and did not see most of the debate. The only part I did see were the closing comments.

My question is, I thought in 2008 public speaking and the debates were some of Obama's strenghts, so why was this one so bad?

Thanks

 

[StrikeS2k]

I really don't follow politics that much and did not see most of the debate. The only part I did see were the closing comments. My question is, I thought in 2008 public speaking and the debates were some of Obama's strenghts, so why was this one so bad? Thanks

He isn't debating McPalin. Everything is relative.

 

[JNox3]

I really don't follow politics that much and did not see most of the debate. The only part I did see were the closing comments. My question is, I thought in 2008 public speaking and the debates were some of Obama's strenghts, so why was this one so bad? Thanks

He isn't debating McPalin. Everything is relative.

Like I said, I only saw the closing comments. He didn't even seem to know what he was going to say in the closing comments. I can't imagine those weren't discussed beforehand to some extent.

 

[Marvelous]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

I thought Romney did OK. Don't be so harsh on him.

To be fair, Romney has a plan to cut taxes, raise defense spending, raise medicare spending, balance the budget, and buy puppies for orphans. We just aren't privy to the details, other than cutting PBS funding, of course.

Romney did answer this question. He will reach across the aisle and get everyone to agree to the details of the proposals. He compared his approach to Ronald Reagan, where is laying the foundation and then letting everyone work out the specific details. He also said Obama was presenting take it or leave it plans since he was providing details.And there was no further response from Obama. Obama could have easily said something like, "So you have no details. That's a plan for failure."

 

[Tau837]

Truth matters -- and in one of the few times that I've ever agreed with Newt Gingrich -- it will be on the innate dishonesty in Mitt Romney. He's certainly had practice lying in business -- it's highly unlikely he told Kaybee toys that they planned to bankrupt their decades-old company and lay off 15,000 workers, but they did., and Ampad, and others.. Not too mention his taxes.

Prime example last night.

Romney's charge on Obama's $716-billion Medicare cut.

Mitt Romney repeated a somewhat misleading claim that President Obama cut $716 billion out of the Medicare program for current beneficiaries.

The president's healthcare law does reduce future spending on Medicare, but those savings are obtained by reducing federal payments to insurance companies, hospitals and other providers, and do not affect benefits for people in the Medicare program.

You forgot to include a relevant part of what you linked:

It is still unclear what effect these cuts will have on the program in the long run. And Romney accurately cited concerns that they may ultimately affect beneficiaries.

Several experts, including Medicare's independent actuary, have warned that the planned cuts may force some providers to either close or to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries.

I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. You know, since truth matters.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Truth matters -- and in one of the few times that I've ever agreed with Newt Gingrich -- it will be on the innate dishonesty in Mitt Romney. He's certainly had practice lying in business -- it's highly unlikely he told Kaybee toys that they planned to bankrupt their decades-old company and lay off 15,000 workers, but they did., and Ampad, and others.. Not too mention his taxes.

Prime example last night.

Romney's charge on Obama's $716-billion Medicare cut.

Mitt Romney repeated a somewhat misleading claim that President Obama cut $716 billion out of the Medicare program for current beneficiaries.

The president's healthcare law does reduce future spending on Medicare, but those savings are obtained by reducing federal payments to insurance companies, hospitals and other providers, and do not affect benefits for people in the Medicare program.

It is still unclear what effect these cuts will have on the program in the long run. And Romney accurately cited concerns that they may ultimately affect beneficiaries.

Several experts, including Medicare's independent actuary, have warned that the planned cuts may force some providers to either close or to stop serving Medicare beneficiaries.

I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. You know, since truth matters.

How do your post negate that? Romney's statement is still wrong. The president's healthcare law does reduce future spending on Medicare, but those savings are obtained by reducing federal payments to insurance companies, hospitals and other providers, and do not affect benefits for people in the Medicare program.In your bolded statement the word may is key - the plan itself does not cut $716 billion out of the Medicare program for current beneficiaries.

 

[Claydon]

Hes gotta stand up in the next debate and punch Romney right in the mouth. Call him out on all of his bull####.

I keep trying to point out: it won't matter. THIS was the only debate that mattered. 60 million people watched tonight. Not even half that will watch any of the next 3 debates. If Obama was going to look good, it had to be tonight. He didn't. And now there's a chance he may lose the election, and if so, there's no way to recover.

Yeah...90 minutes of Romney bull####ting totally overshadows his past several months of crap.

 

[Marvelous]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

In Obama's last campaign, he said he would work with Replublicans and change the culture in Washington.When George W. Bush ran, he said he would work across the aisle and change the culture in Washington.What makes anyone think Romney has the interpersonal skills to work positively with Congress? This is a pretty hollow campaign promise.

 

[CrossEyed]

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.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

In Obama's last campaign, he said he would work with Replublicans and change the culture in Washington.When George W. Bush ran, he said he would work across the aisle and change the culture in Washington.What makes anyone think Romney has the interpersonal skills to work positively with Congress? This is a pretty hollow campaign promise.

He probably won't. But I know Obama doesn't.

 

[NCCommish]

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.

 

[Slapdash]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

I see. Romney is going to put new policy in play to increase the debt by 8 trillion over the next ten years then turn around and work with congress as a check on their reckless behavior. That makes perfect sense.

 

[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?

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

I see. Romney is going to put new policy in play to increase the debt by 8 trillion over the next ten years then turn around and work with congress as a check on their reckless behavior. That makes perfect sense.

The current policy in play does the same.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

 

[Slapdash]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

I see. Romney is going to put new policy in play to increase the debt by 8 trillion over the next ten years then turn around and work with congress as a check on their reckless behavior. That makes perfect sense.

The current policy in play does the same.

The current policy cuts taxes by 5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts, adds 700 billion in spending to Medicare, and increase the growth in military spending by 2 trillion? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[The Commish]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

Romeny didn't have any problem doing it. I'd hope if Romney could do it, Obama could too.

 

[Mello]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

I see. Romney is going to put new policy in play to increase the debt by 8 trillion over the next ten years then turn around and work with congress as a check on their reckless behavior. That makes perfect sense.

The current policy in play does the same.

Obama hasn't gone around the last 4 years beating up the Republicans on refusing to reduce government spending.

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

 

[jon_mx]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership

Enacted tax cuts which were never paid for

2 wars, 1 of choice

Prescription drug benefit

No Child Left Behind

Gutted the SEC budget

Gutted bankruptcy law

Thats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Relaxing of the lending standards was an SEC action. Supposedly an independant non-partisan quasi-regualatory agency, but the chairmans are appointed by the president, so there is some accountability there for Bush. Greenspan did a reasonably good job. He kept the economy moving. He could have put us in a recession, but that would have just made the bubble burst sooner. Your other points had no bearing what so ever on the housing bubble and financial crisis, just your partisan hackery that you threw which contributed nothing.

The SEC has nothing to do with lending standards. Fannie and Freddie do. And Greenspan admitted himself that his philosophy was

The SEC eased rules making it easier for fiancial companies to securitize more loans. Fannie and Freddie set requirements for laons which they back. So they both had a role. I have not heard a convincing arguement that Greenspan could have prevented it using his power as Fed Chair. Maybe he could have influenced law and regulation. But that is where the problems were with laws and regulations and most had been in place long before Bush.

 

[tommyboy]

i was busy working and just sat down and read a few things online about the debate. over at CNN they have romney winning the debate 67%-25%. On MSNBC they're having a meltdown and Andrew Sullivan called it "a disaster". Huffpo big bold headline "Romney Wins the Night". Sounds like i'm on my way to picking up $2000

I'll double it up whenever you're ready.

i'll think about it.

Why on earth would you do this? For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you are making these bets. Are you that foolish? Or do you get that much satisfaction from getting one over on anonymous people from the Internet that you're willing to leave a large sum of money on the table?

i don't really care about money the way you do.

I don't think you get to play the fast and loose high roller card when you bailed and cut the original bets in half out of fear.

who said i was playing the high roller card? I was making the point to bigbottom that he seems obsessed with me not getting odds.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work with positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.

That is bunk. He is quite willing to dictate fiscal policy that increases the deficit, just not on what pays for it.

That is not fiscal responsibility. Romney may have no plan as to what he would do as president for fiscal responsibility. But Obama has no history as president for fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Romney's plan at this point is a carbon copy of W's: reduce taxes while increasing defense and Medicare spending. It is foolish to claim that is a platform for fiscal responsibility.

I'm not claiming that. I reckognize that congress is the country's fiscal problem. Not the president. I applaud Romney for reckognizing that the details of fiscal responsibility will have to come from congress. It can't be dictated to them. The president has to work with them to achieve fiscal responsibility. As long as the president is willing to let the country be fiscally wreckless, congress will behave wrecklessly, because the executive office is supposed to be the "checks and balance" that keeps us from having a wreckless government. We haven't had a president do that since Kennedy.

I see. Romney is going to put new policy in play to increase the debt by 8 trillion over the next ten years then turn around and work with congress as a check on their reckless behavior. That makes perfect sense.

The current policy in play does the same.

Obama hasn't gone around the last 4 years beating up the Republicans on refusing to reduce government spending.

Exactly. It won't change if he is re-elected.

 

[Jackstraw]

OBAMA: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He’s ruled out revenue.

ROMNEY: Absolutely

 

[The Commish]

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.

Yes, he has, but it can't if he intends on not raising the tax liability on the middle and lower classes. That's the rub. The math doesn't add up and it's been brought up a million times here in the various FFA threads. It's a bold faced lie, much like Obama's lies around healthcare.

 

[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?

Something D O O economics. Voo-doo economics.Real growth will only come from increases to real wages for everyone not in the top tax bracket. That or time for those same consumers to deleverage themselves. Tax cuts are no substitute.

 

[tommyboy]

Which right wing nutjobs are saying Romney just won the election with his debate performance?

tommyboy for one.

lets be real here, i've been saying Romney will win the election for quite a while. Not like i just flipped the switch on.look if you're going to make assertions like that you should use a better proof of your point.

 

[The Commish]

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

 

[NCCommish]

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?

No it's always going to be a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. How you pay for it doesn't change that. Apparently you and Mitt went to the same economics school. Let me say it again even if you cut every loophole that exists there is no way to do what Mitt said with his plan. You can not lower everyone's taxes 20%, increase defense spending by trillions and not introduce a huge crater in the budget. It will have to be filled somehow and since Mitt and his buddies would be paying next to nothing under the plan he is espousing it would have to come from somewhere else. That means we devastate the social net or we go after the middle class. That's pretty much it.

 

[CrossEyed]

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?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

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.

You definitely have to burden the middle class with Mitt's proposal of across the board tax cuts and increased spending in other areas. It amounts to trillions. The benefit? Trickle down prosperity, or something.There is no one with a gun to Mitt's head forcing him to give the entire nation a 20% tax cut. This is his idea in an era of clammors for fiscal discipline. If he wants to push this as a great idea, the numbers need to work. They not only don't, they can't.

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

Something D O O economics. Voo-doo economics.Real growth will only come from increases to real wages for everyone not in the top tax bracket. That or time for those same consumers to deleverage themselves. Tax cuts are no substitute.

Small business owners are not in the top tax bracket.

 

[sublimeone]

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.

 

[CrossEyed]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jackstraw]

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.

We still have to pretend supply side works? We have been living under the lowest tax rates in modern history since the Bush tax cuts. And Obama cut them even lower. Who am I gonna believe? You or my lying eyes?

 

[Politician Spock]

No it's always going to be a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. How you pay for it doesn't change that.

If all that happened was elimination of tax deductions, that would be a tax increase. If the change includes a rate deduction (a tax cut) AND includes elimination of tax deductions (a tax increase), then net is not the entire amount of the rate deduction. The net is the difference between the two.

 

[Joe T]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

I thought Romney did OK. Don't be so harsh on him.

To be fair, Romney is the only one presenting any ideas at all.

fixed.

 

[The Commish]

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.