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

[SmoovySmoov]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..

So successful he's losing it by 30 points.

What is he losing?

Massachusetts!:facepalm:

 

[3C's]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

 

[3C's]

Obama:

"Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."



Reminds me of him explaining Clinton era tax rates bringing back Clinton era prosperity..

Does this man know how this thing works? Doesn't seem like it..

Debating gas prices exposes seriousness. Presidents don't influence the price of gas in any real way. It's not tied to prosperity or economic health. It's tied to the global oil price. It's no more complicated than that. I understand the politics of this, but the reality is that gas is a global commodity and priced as such.

Heavier regulations, voting down a pipeline, bringing criminal charges against oil companies, canceling oil drilling permits, etc, does effect the price of oil.. Obama does effect gas prices, for which at times I've spent up to $1200 a month.. Over 10k a year... Much bigger influence on the econimic well being of the working class then a 4% tax hike..Cost of energy, and gas is a huge issue, Obama would like to sweep it under the carpet, Romney needs to hammer him on this one..

Do you drive an tank??

How much money do you spend on gas?My household has 3 cars now, I was spending 12oo per month when we only had 2 cars (when I was doing a lot of work north of town around the lake). I drive a full sized pickup truck as I'm a General Contractor..

I drive 100 miles per day minimum and am nowhere near that. Even at $4/gallon and 15 miles/gallon that's 4500 miles a month.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Obama:

"Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."



Reminds me of him explaining Clinton era tax rates bringing back Clinton era prosperity..

Does this man know how this thing works? Doesn't seem like it..

Debating gas prices exposes seriousness. Presidents don't influence the price of gas in any real way. It's not tied to prosperity or economic health. It's tied to the global oil price. It's no more complicated than that. I understand the politics of this, but the reality is that gas is a global commodity and priced as such.

Heavier regulations, voting down a pipeline, bringing criminal charges against oil companies, canceling oil drilling permits, etc, does effect the price of oil.. Obama does effect gas prices, for which at times I've spent up to $1200 a month.. Over 10k a year... Much bigger influence on the econimic well being of the working class then a 4% tax hike..Cost of energy, and gas is a huge issue, Obama would like to sweep it under the carpet, Romney needs to hammer him on this one..

Do you drive an tank??

How much money do you spend on gas?My household has 3 cars now, I was spending 12oo per month when we only had 2 cars (when I was doing a lot of work north of town around the lake). I drive a full sized pickup truck as I'm a General Contractor..

I drive 100 miles per day minimum and am nowhere near that. Even at $4/gallon and 15 miles/gallon that's 4500 miles a month.

$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.

 

[datonn]

$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.

Holy cow, man. Unless you're in the delivery business or a trucker, that's an insane amount of fuel consumption. My wife and I have two vehicles, and live an hour from anywhere. Yet we don't consume more than 700 gallons of fuel between us in a year. Haven't for the past nine years. And a lot of that is "recreational" too. My wife visiting family, or running around with the kids. I personally consume about 265 gallons of fuel/year. And if I use the middle of your range and assume $4/gallon for gas (round number, to make the math easier), that's 375 gallons/month of fuel consumption...just for you! Excluding your wife, from the sounds of it.So the earlier question was actually reasonable then: Do you drive a tank?!

 

[dparker713]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

 

[Zegras11]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

"But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."

 

[Sea Duck]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

"But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."

That's a good point. Mitt can't be blamed for being 47th in job creation because he actually has nothing to do with creating jobs.

 

[dparker713]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

"But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."

"Governors and presidents generally get way too much credit and blame for job creation or losses," Miron said.But if this is your main attacking point for Obama, I'd think you'd want a better showing here.

 

[3C's]

Much like gas prices and other things presidents get credit and blame for.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

"But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."

"Governors and presidents generally get way too much credit and blame for job creation or losses," Miron said.But if this is your main attacking point for Obama, I'd think you'd want a better showing here.

Obama directly claimed he would bring up job #'s before his first election, and he directly claims any jobs that were created during his term.. He's opening himself up for that criticism isn't he?He claimed he could do something that he couldn't/didn't, and is claiming he has done something that he hasn't..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

Wasn't Mass 49th out of 50 during his term in job creation?

47th. Close enough. And his approval rating fell throughout his term.

Link

"But we found little evidence to support the other part of Axelrod's claim, that Romney is responsible for those jobs numbers. Economists told us that it's a stretch to blame or credit Romney or any governor for job numbers."

 

[pantherclub]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

 

[3C's]

$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.

Holy cow, man. Unless you're in the delivery business or a trucker, that's an insane amount of fuel consumption. My wife and I have two vehicles, and live an hour from anywhere. Yet we don't consume more than 700 gallons of fuel between us in a year. Haven't for the past nine years. And a lot of that is "recreational" too. My wife visiting family, or running around with the kids. I personally consume about 265 gallons of fuel/year. And if I use the middle of your range and assume $4/gallon for gas (round number, to make the math easier), that's 375 gallons/month of fuel consumption...just for you! Excluding your wife, from the sounds of it.So the earlier question was actually reasonable then: Do you drive a tank?!

Even if I drive my 5.9L 4wd "tank" 100 miles per day I'm not near $1200/month. If we're talking household, sure. I have 6 cars, 4 of which are driven daily.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Obama was doing this pose all night.

And Romney had his smirk on all night

yeah, but that's what Romney looks like all the time. Obama makes a conscious effort to do that weird arrogant thing with his head from time to time and it's just kind of odd. My link

My link

Josh Romney

 

[The Commish]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

Romney was also a successful governor in Mass if you've forgotten..I think his experiences, both politically, and in the buisness world are strong indicators of how well he can do the job..

I couldn't have had less interest in him while he was Governor of Mass, so all I have is his record to go by. It disagrees with your assessment and is one of the main reasons I have little confidence in him. I don't care much about his private sector successes since he's going to be in the public sector.

 

[The Commish]

Obama:

"Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."



Reminds me of him explaining Clinton era tax rates bringing back Clinton era prosperity..

Does this man know how this thing works? Doesn't seem like it..

Debating gas prices exposes seriousness. Presidents don't influence the price of gas in any real way. It's not tied to prosperity or economic health. It's tied to the global oil price. It's no more complicated than that. I understand the politics of this, but the reality is that gas is a global commodity and priced as such.

Heavier regulations, voting down a pipeline, bringing criminal charges against oil companies, canceling oil drilling permits, etc, does effect the price of oil.. Obama does effect gas prices, for which at times I've spent up to $1200 a month.. Over 10k a year... Much bigger influence on the econimic well being of the working class then a 4% tax hike..Cost of energy, and gas is a huge issue, Obama would like to sweep it under the carpet, Romney needs to hammer him on this one..

Do you drive an tank??

How much money do you spend on gas?My household has 3 cars now, I was spending 12oo per month when we only had 2 cars (when I was doing a lot of work north of town around the lake). I drive a full sized pickup truck as I'm a General Contractor..

Funny you should ask....I spent $298 dollars last month on gas for a Ford F250 and a Buick Enclave.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Obama:

"Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."



Reminds me of him explaining Clinton era tax rates bringing back Clinton era prosperity..

Does this man know how this thing works? Doesn't seem like it..

You do realize that was one of three lines all night (all three by Obama) that elicited a solid crowd reaction? You can laugh all you want, but it worked at the moment.

Regardless of the crowd reaction, it's still a ridiculous assertion, and only an idiot would believe that bringing the price of gas down hurts americans economicly.

Nobody said that bringing the price down hurts Americans. The price goes down due to lack of demand when the economy is heading down.

The president implied that the price of gas at the pump was low because the country was on the verge of economic collapse, and that Romney could bring the cost off gas back down but in the process would also bring those other policies back..[QUOTE='Obama]He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse...

I know what Obama said. Did you read what you wrote?

once, and evidently more times than you have..[/QUOTE]Ok, let me see if I can break this down for you. You wrote:

only an idiot would believe that bringing the price of gas down hurts americans economicly.

What you said means you believe only an idiot would think that the ACTION of bringing down gas prices CAUSES an economic downturn. I, and everybody else would agree. Nobody is saying that by somehow artificially bringing down gas prices the American economy would be hurt. What Obama and others were arguing was that the ACTION of an economic downturn CAUSES a drop in gas prices due to the lowering of demand. You have it completely backwards.

If you want to argue that in a downward turning economy gas prices are not so impacted as what Obama stated, go ahead. If you want to argue that while Obama's statement may generally be true, there are other causes which have a greater impact on gas prices that are within Obama's control, then argue that.

You, however, make little to no sense. Carpet-bombing threads doesn't get your point across or mean that you've won any type of argument or debate.

 

[ericttspikes]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

He has a gas powered internet connection.

 

[Boston]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

He has a gas powered internet connection.

Also invented by Al Gore...

 

[CBusAlex]

BINDERS OF WOMEN! BRING ME BINDERS OF WOMEN

Avery Durable View Binder with 2 Inch EZ-Turn Ring

 

[DoubleG]

BINDERS OF WOMEN! BRING ME BINDERS OF WOMEN

Avery Durable View Binder with 2 Inch EZ-Turn Ring

You have to provide your own womenz. :

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Both of these knuckleheads choked on the Apple question:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/opinion/prestowitz-debate-apple/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[BoneYardDog]

Obama promised to reduce deficit by 1/2 during his 1st term. Instead, deficit just topped a trillion dollars for the fourth year running.

 

[adonis]

BINDERS OF WOMEN! BRING ME BINDERS OF WOMEN

Avery Durable View Binder with 2 Inch EZ-Turn Ring

While I've found all the reviews of this product most enlightening I couldn't help but notice that they all seemed to be penned by women. I thought I'd set the record straight with a male perspective. Ladies, take note.

I purchased the Avery binder about a year ago. Before I had this product, my women were everywhere. I ran into them in the halls, they were in my home, sometimes occupying the bathroom for long hours, it was basically chaos. Once I acquired my binder, however, everything just made sense. Whenever I need someone with an innate capacity for home economics to rush home and cook my dinner, I open my binder and presto, there's my lady. I usually let her know how much I appreciate her contribution with a firm open-palmed smack on the behind. In my experience, women love that kind of affirmation, and if they don't get it they lose self-esteem. If by chance, a woman I pull out of the binder doesn't live up to my expectations or objects to the pat on the bum, I've created a special section deep at the back of my binder and I consign her there never to be called upon again.

In short, the binder has created order from chaos. In many ways, it helps to restore what I think we all feel deep in our hearts to be the natural order. I recommend this product most highly.

 

[Run It Up]

BINDERS OF WOMEN! BRING ME BINDERS OF WOMEN

Avery Durable View Binder with 2 Inch EZ-Turn Ring

While I've found all the reviews of this product most enlightening I couldn't help but notice that they all seemed to be penned by women. I thought I'd set the record straight with a male perspective. Ladies, take note.

I purchased the Avery binder about a year ago. Before I had this product, my women were everywhere. I ran into them in the halls, they were in my home, sometimes occupying the bathroom for long hours, it was basically chaos. Once I acquired my binder, however, everything just made sense. Whenever I need someone with an innate capacity for home economics to rush home and cook my dinner, I open my binder and presto, there's my lady. I usually let her know how much I appreciate her contribution with a firm open-palmed smack on the behind. In my experience, women love that kind of affirmation, and if they don't get it they lose self-esteem. If by chance, a woman I pull out of the binder doesn't live up to my expectations or objects to the pat on the bum, I've created a special section deep at the back of my binder and I consign her there never to be called upon again.

In short, the binder has created order from chaos. In many ways, it helps to restore what I think we all feel deep in our hearts to be the natural order. I recommend this product most highly.

 

[BoneYardDog]

You guys need to keep up better, I've run out of threads to educate you...

CNBC’s Rick Santelli Sets the Record Straight on Obama’s Jobs Claim: “Zero”As only CNBC’s Rick Santelli can do it, he destroys Barack Obama’s claim to have created 5 million jobs during his term. Santelli points out that if you count “the plusses” AND “the minuses” – “It’s a push – zero.” That pretty well describes the Presidency of Barack Obama.If I don't have to count what my family spends, I'm a rich guy.

 

[wazoo11]

All the large big banks are now in Mitt Romney's corner.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

I have regular working hours like anyone else..And I never said I "drive a ton"..

 

[The Commish]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

I have regular working hours like anyone else..And I never said I "drive a ton"..

That's really the only explanation for your $1200 a month in gas

 

[Carolina Hustler]

$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.

Holy cow, man. Unless you're in the delivery business or a trucker, that's an insane amount of fuel consumption. My wife and I have two vehicles, and live an hour from anywhere. Yet we don't consume more than 700 gallons of fuel between us in a year. Haven't for the past nine years. And a lot of that is "recreational" too. My wife visiting family, or running around with the kids. I personally consume about 265 gallons of fuel/year. And if I use the middle of your range and assume $4/gallon for gas (round number, to make the math easier), that's 375 gallons/month of fuel consumption...just for you! Excluding your wife, from the sounds of it.

So the earlier question was actually reasonable then: Do you drive a tank?!

Even if I drive my 5.9L 4wd "tank" 100 miles per day I'm not near $1200/month. If we're talking household, sure. I have 6 cars, 4 of which are driven daily.

I drive a 5.9L 4wd, and I'm close to that.. But yes, we were talking about a household, not an individual vehicle. You can't measure what your family spends on food if you only count what you spend on milk..An average of 100 miles a day is probably high if you live in city and have a desk job, but is probably low if you own a service buisness.

- primary vehicle (many variables here, depending on who drives the most, husband or wife, and what each of them drive)

100 miles per day @ 15 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $186.66 per week = $9706.66 per year

- Secondary vehicle

50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year

- Third vehicle if household includes 1 child of driving age who drives to school/community college/other events.

50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year

$16,324.84 a year ($1360.30 per month) is a lot of money..

There are many work vehicles in the service industry that get worse than 15 mpg (including my truck). And there are many (most) who drive more than 100 miles per day. Obviously there are also people who can walk to work as well, or use mass transit..

What I'm trying to explain though, these service industry workers/buisness owners are mostly part of the lower middle class and gas prices are killing them. Most of them pay more for gas on a monthly basis then they pay on mortgage/rent.. Gas prices have a huge impact on the middle class

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For someone who is a general contractor that drives a ton you sure are on here a lot hustler.

I have regular working hours like anyone else..And I never said I "drive a ton"..

That's really the only explanation for your $1200 a month in gas

There are families who drive more and spend more..Define 'ton of driving'. If you live in a suburb of a large city, you can drive 100 miles per day in one vehicle just getting to and from work (1 location), then add errands you need to run before or after work like going to the store, ball games, out for lunch/dinner etc..There are people who drive to 4-5 locations per day. I'll relate it in what I know (construction/tradesmen).. A service plumber that I had working on one of my projects yesterday made 4 stops before getting to my project at 12:30, left my project at 2:30 and had 2 more stops to make, in between service calls he has to make stops at the supply house or for lunch, or back to the office etc... That guy drives "a ton"... And he drives a loaded down (full of equipment and supplies) work van.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What you said means you believe only an idiot would think that the ACTION of bringing down gas prices CAUSES an economic downturn. I, and everybody else would agree. Nobody is saying that by somehow artificially bringing down gas prices the American economy would be hurt. What Obama and others were arguing was that the ACTION of an economic downturn CAUSES a drop in gas prices due to the lowering of demand.

You lefties are so full of it..

Lowest gas prices in recent history were during the Clinton era.. Worst economy in recent history is right now ($4 per gallon).. Care to reflect on the gas prices again with more nonsense?

 

[timschochet]

CH, putting aside what Obama and Romney said about this issue:

Do you believe that a Romney victory would lead to lower gas prices? If so, how?

 

[Zegras11]

CH, putting aside what Obama and Romney said about this issue: Do you believe that a Romney victory would lead to lower gas prices? If so, how?

This is easy. If he's able to carry out his plans to get energy independent in the next 8 years, prices should go down.

 

[BoneYardDog]

When you have nothing to run on, this is what obama has to do...At least obama is done with Big Bird" now he can move on to Eva Longoria's ####...

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called President Obama's reelection team "the incredible shrinking campaign" during a Florida rally late Friday, saying "they've been reduced to petty attacks and silly word games," ABC News reported.The fresh attack from Romney comes after President Obama accused his GOP challenger of backing away from certain policy positions in an effort to appeal to centrist voters and said he was suffering from "Romnesia." The phrase later spread like wildfire on Twitter.“The Obama campaign has become the incredible shrinking campaign. This is a big country with big opportunities and great challenges, and they keep on talking about smaller and smaller things," Romney told the audience at the rally in Daytona Beach, Fla., according to ABC News."We have big ideas, bold ideas, a strong agenda," Romney continued. "We’re going to get America working again and that’s why you’re going to help elect the two of us.”The former Massachusetts governor also accused the president's campaign with having "absolutely no agenda for the future" nor an "agenda for a second term."

 

[Tuco]

CH, putting aside what Obama and Romney said about this issue: Do you believe that a Romney victory would lead to lower gas prices? If so, how?

I'm a novice in this area, but would opening up more opportunity to drill on federal land, off shore, Alaska and approving the Keystone Pipeline lower gas prices?My impression is that it would, but it would take the focus off of alternative energies that Obama is favoring.

 

[larry_boy_44]

CH, putting aside what Obama and Romney said about this issue: Do you believe that a Romney victory would lead to lower gas prices? If so, how?

I'm a novice in this area, but would opening up more opportunity to drill on federal land, off shore, Alaska and approving the Keystone Pipeline lower gas prices?My impression is that it would, but it would take the focus off of alternative energies that Obama is favoring.

not a super genius economist...but if the issue is supply vs. demand then there are two says to solve high prices:1. lower demand2. increase supplyObama seems to absolutely refuse to do #2. Which I don't understand.Can anyone explain to me why, if we want to switch over to renewable energy full-time at some point in the future, we are conserving oil and coal and such? If we aren't gonna need it in 40 years, why aren't we using it now?Or at least increasing our supply some so we have more money we can put into other forms of energy and figuring out how to make them work.Also, beyond that, I'm a huge fan of drilling our own oil and the keystone pipeline and stuff like that for the same reason I think marijuana should be legal. Stop supporting people who want to destroy us with our money if an alternative exists. For marijuana, stop supporting cartels and gangs by producing the stuff legally and put the money in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens of the USA instead of illegal gangs and cartels that operate in America but get their drugs elsewhere. With oil? Stop buying from OPEC and countries that consider us an enemy or evil.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

What you said means you believe only an idiot would think that the ACTION of bringing down gas prices CAUSES an economic downturn. I, and everybody else would agree. Nobody is saying that by somehow artificially bringing down gas prices the American economy would be hurt. What Obama and others were arguing was that the ACTION of an economic downturn CAUSES a drop in gas prices due to the lowering of demand.

You lefties are so full of it..

Lowest gas prices in recent history were during the Clinton era.. Worst economy in recent history is right now ($4 per gallon).. Care to reflect on the gas prices again with more nonsense?

You are extremely dense and completely missed the point. It wasn't a question of right and wrong. It was you're lack of logic and reading comprehension of your own thought on the subject.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Unless there is a very significant external development between now and Nov 6, I expect obama to get barely 46% of the vote...

 

[3C's]

Unless there is a very significant external development between now and Nov 6, I expect obama to get barely 46% of the vote...

bet?

 

[drummer]

Unless there is a very significant external development between now and Nov 6, I expect obama to get barely 46% of the vote...

bet?

 

[Otis]

Unless there is a very significant external development between now and Nov 6, I expect obama to get barely 46% of the vote...

bet?

He may be game for a signature bet.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

not a super genius economist...but if the issue is supply vs. demand then there are two says to solve high prices:1. lower demand2. increase supplyObama seems to absolutely refuse to do #2. Which I don't understand.Can anyone explain to me why, if we want to switch over to renewable energy full-time at some point in the future, we are conserving oil and coal and such? If we aren't gonna need it in 40 years, why aren't we using it now?

You ask why we don't increase supply, and then you ask why we don't reduce supply . . .Using oil now reduces the supply of oil, thus increasing the cost. (The more oil we use now, the less we'll be able to use in the future, which makes a gallon of oil in the future more valuable than it otherwise would be. So speculators will bid up the price of oil futures, which will increase the present cost of oil as well.)In any case, I don't think the government should be trying to manipulate the consumption or conservation of oil except to internalize external costs (for example, by charging a tax on gasoline to reflect the costs of pollution). One thing that markets are much better at than politicians is using prices to smooth out consumption over time in a sensible way.

 

[dparker713]

What you said means you believe only an idiot would think that the ACTION of bringing down gas prices CAUSES an economic downturn. I, and everybody else would agree. Nobody is saying that by somehow artificially bringing down gas prices the American economy would be hurt. What Obama and others were arguing was that the ACTION of an economic downturn CAUSES a drop in gas prices due to the lowering of demand.

You lefties are so full of it..

Lowest gas prices in recent history were during the Clinton era.. Worst economy in recent history is right now ($4 per gallon).. Care to reflect on the gas prices again with more nonsense?

How can anyone think the economy is worse now than it was in 2008-2009?

 

[drummer]

What you said means you believe only an idiot would think that the ACTION of bringing down gas prices CAUSES an economic downturn. I, and everybody else would agree. Nobody is saying that by somehow artificially bringing down gas prices the American economy would be hurt. What Obama and others were arguing was that the ACTION of an economic downturn CAUSES a drop in gas prices due to the lowering of demand.

You lefties are so full of it..

Lowest gas prices in recent history were during the Clinton era.. Worst economy in recent history is right now ($4 per gallon).. Care to reflect on the gas prices again with more nonsense?

How can anyone think the economy is worse now than it was in 2008-2009?

Because they are not teh Libs!!

 

[larry_boy_44]

not a super genius economist...but if the issue is supply vs. demand then there are two says to solve high prices:1. lower demand2. increase supplyObama seems to absolutely refuse to do #2. Which I don't understand.Can anyone explain to me why, if we want to switch over to renewable energy full-time at some point in the future, we are conserving oil and coal and such? If we aren't gonna need it in 40 years, why aren't we using it now?

You ask why we don't increase supply, and then you ask why we don't reduce supply . . .Using oil now reduces the supply of oil, thus increasing the cost. (The more oil we use now, the less we'll be able to use in the future, which makes a gallon of oil in the future more valuable than it otherwise would be. So speculators will bid up the price of oil futures, which will increase the present cost of oil as well.)In any case, I don't think the government should be trying to manipulate the consumption or conservation of oil except to internalize external costs (for example, by charging a tax on gasoline to reflect the costs of pollution). One thing that markets are much better at than politicians is using prices to smooth out consumption over time in a sensible way.

But here's the problem...You're assuming that we are never going to stop needing oil (which is impossible no matter what).I'm going on the assumption that at some point we have to stop depending on oil and other non-renewable sources of, well, anything, THUS at some point oil is going to become worthless (which makes prospecting stupid long-term and only intelligent short term).Preserving something we don't want to use forever is stupid. Or at least it seems stupid to me. Is that wrong? If so, why?

 

[Ursa M]

not a super genius economist...but if the issue is supply vs. demand then there are two says to solve high prices:1. lower demand2. increase supplyObama seems to absolutely refuse to do #2. Which I don't understand.Can anyone explain to me why, if we want to switch over to renewable energy full-time at some point in the future, we are conserving oil and coal and such? If we aren't gonna need it in 40 years, why aren't we using it now?

You ask why we don't increase supply, and then you ask why we don't reduce supply . . .Using oil now reduces the supply of oil, thus increasing the cost. (The more oil we use now, the less we'll be able to use in the future, which makes a gallon of oil in the future more valuable than it otherwise would be. So speculators will bid up the price of oil futures, which will increase the present cost of oil as well.)In any case, I don't think the government should be trying to manipulate the consumption or conservation of oil except to internalize external costs (for example, by charging a tax on gasoline to reflect the costs of pollution). One thing that markets are much better at than politicians is using prices to smooth out consumption over time in a sensible way.

But here's the problem...You're assuming that we are never going to stop needing oil (which is impossible no matter what).I'm going on the assumption that at some point we have to stop depending on oil and other non-renewable sources of, well, anything, THUS at some point oil is going to become worthless (which makes prospecting stupid long-term and only intelligent short term).Preserving something we don't want to use forever is stupid. Or at least it seems stupid to me. Is that wrong? If so, why?

To put it simply, we don't have a clue when we will be able to replace it for all it's multifarious purposes, hence preservation makes sense.

 

[DrJ]

Any of you rubes wanna bet $100 on Mitt? I'll take the prez. Hurry, window closing soon.

So you got $200 on the prez to my $100 on Romney?

Why?

Because I want to give you $100.

I like that part. Why don't we just call it $100 even either way. Unless you think your guy isn't doing well?

Timmy convinced me that betting on Romney isn't the morally right thing to do. So I need some odds.

Update?

 

[3C's]

Unless there is a very significant external development between now and Nov 6, I expect obama to get barely 46% of the vote...

bet?

He may be game for a signature bet.

sigs hidden