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

[DoubleG]

I cannot decide who is more entertaining in here, Jon, Jim or Pittstown?Leaning Pitts at this point

You should have been here yesterday.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I cannot decide who is more entertaining in here, Jon, Jim or Pittstown?Leaning Pitts at this point

I meant this?:applause:GD, it is hard to type these things in on a phone. Well meant whatever the guy is. There you go.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.

1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high

2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million

3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit

4) Balance the budget

5) Free ice cream for everyone

With my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.

If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

Obama's plan of taxing the wealthy comes nowhere near close to covering any of the costs of his plan of non-specifics; does this upset you?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

 

[The Commish]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

The math doesn't add up, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's like de ja vu all over again....I remember going from thread to thread with Obamacare, but no one listened then either. It's much easier to tell folks once and then laugh at the people who continue to parrot the nonsense.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Romney didn't create jobs as a businessman. He made money. And that is fine and the goal of just about everybody in America. But being able to make lots of profits doesn't mean you can run a country. The US economy isn't a business whose goal is to turn a profit. The US government has other duties and priorities. Should it be fiscally responsible? Of course, but that doesn't mean profitable. Every decision shouldn't and cannot be made with an eye towards the bottom line. Should levies not be maintained if their breach destroys property valued at less money than the cost of repair?

 

[Slapdash]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

So he can lay out specifics about the ways he is going to increase the deficit, but doesn't want to tip his hat on the ways to decrease it? Makes perfect sense.

He has laid out specifics about his plan, he just hasn't laid out a specific about where the cap on deductions will be set.

No potential cap he has mentioned would come close to covering even half of the costs about his tax cut. Elminating all itemized deductions still would only fill in 2 trillion of the 5 trillion dollar hole. And he shifted to this capping "plan" because he couldn't name a single deduction to eliminate completely, which was his former "plan".

 

[Slapdash]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

He doesn't have a plan. A plan actually requires, you know, planning. You can't just say "capping of deductions" pays for tax cuts and leave it at that. If Obama said that he was gonna pay off the entire debt by auctioning off a round of golf with him to the three highest bidders, would you consider that a "plan"? Why not?

Your point is certainly a fine angle to take in a debate and I think it is fair request. Romney has said that he will not utter specifics because these waypoints have to be argued in Congress and he does not want to reveal his hand; not the precise formula I would like to hear but it beats the non-specifics of "everything is getting better" b.s. that I hear from the administration.

So he can lay out specifics about the ways he is going to increase the deficit, but doesn't want to tip his hat on the ways to decrease it? Makes perfect sense.

He has laid out specifics about his plan, he just hasn't laid out a specific about where the cap on deductions will be set.

From what I've seen, there can't be a cap at all. In order to raise defense spending as he has said he wants to AND lower taxes AND lower the debt / deficit, all deductions have to be eliminated and even then, the math says that's not possible. There must also be very significant spending cuts and entitlement reform too.

Remember to add back the 700 billion in medicare costs.

 

[17seconds]

Romney didn't create jobs as a businessman. He made money. And that is fine and the goal of just about everybody in America. But being able to make lots of profits doesn't mean you can run a country. The US economy isn't a business whose goal is to turn a profit. The US government has other duties and priorities. Should it be fiscally responsible? Of course, but that doesn't mean profitable. Every decision shouldn't and cannot be made with an eye towards the bottom line. Should levies not be maintained if their breach destroys property valued at less money than the cost of repair?

Completely agree. But Romney has very few true supporters anyway so there isn't much point arguing about it. They are all voting against Obama or just because he's the Republican.

 

[Slapdash]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

The math doesn't add up, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's like de ja vu all over again....I remember going from thread to thread with Obamacare, but no one listened then either. It's much easier to tell folks once and then laugh at the people who continue to parrot the nonsense.

I'm curious what part of Obamacare were you harping on not adding up.

 

[pittstownkiller]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

Here's the outline of my plan: We'll draw some circles, and then some other lines, I don't know, they could be circles, or straight lines, or something else, I'll let Congress figure that out. It doesn't matter. But trust me, you'll end up with an amazing picture of an owl.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

Here's the outline of my plan: We'll draw some circles, and then some other lines, I don't know, they could be circles, or straight lines, or something else, I'll let Congress figure that out. It doesn't matter. But trust me, you'll end up with an amazing picture of an owl.

My owl-drawing plan will obviously work, because I used to paint cats.

 

[Slapdash]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

The issue is that there isn't any possible number in "whatever the number is" to make it work.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is pretty much how Romney's "plan" works.

 

[identikit]

This is pretty much how Romney's "plan" works.

 

[pittstownkiller]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

The issue is that there isn't any possible number in "whatever the number is" to make it work.

Incorrect but it has been stated that it cannot be done without touching home mortgage interest deduction; depending on where the number is drawn will determine who it effects.

 

[humpback]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.

1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high

2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million

3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit

4) Balance the budget

5) Free ice cream for everyone

With my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.

If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

Obama's plan of taxing the wealthy comes nowhere near close to covering any of the costs of his plan of non-specifics; does this upset you?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

 

[Slapdash]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

The issue is that there isn't any possible number in "whatever the number is" to make it work.

Incorrect but it has been stated that it cannot be done without touching home mortgage interest deduction; depending on where the number is drawn will determine who it effects.

Wrong again:

To get a sense of how much money we could raise by capping tax deductions, my TPC colleagues have analyzed the resulting revenue gains and distributional impacts of four ways to limit itemized deductionseliminating them entirely and capping them at $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000calculated against three benchmarks (current law, current policy, and current policy with 20 percent lower rates and elimination of the AMT). As usual, the current law baseline has all expiring tax cuts actually expiring, while the current policy baseline has almost all of them permanently extended.

Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.

...

Suggesting limits on deductions was Governor Romneys first public statement about how he might offset the revenue lost by cutting tax rates. Without more specifics, we cant say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/5 - 2 <> 0

 

[pantagrapher]

Right-wingers are going ape#### on Twitter over Obama's bayonet smack-down. Michelle Malkin is shrieking to the Four Winds, insisting this was a huge gaffe ... for Obama! Reminds me of how they tried to spin Romney's "binders full of women" gaffe into "Obama's empty binder" after the second debate. I don't want to start gloating about conservative desperation, but this is some seriously ridiculous stuff. And I have to believe it's mainly aimed at the oblivious base, not at undecideds.

 

[Zegras11]

I wrote yesterday that Obama has been a terrific foreign policy President. Several of you disagreed with this. One guy, DoubleG, presented a long, IMO absurd list of things Obama had done wrong. Here is my question for those of you who believe that Obama has been lousy at foreign policy: why did Romney largely agree last night with every one of Obama's policies?

I do not think that Obama has been lousy at FP, just that he has had lapses along with his successes. To answer your question, I truly believe that Romney feels he was up on points (overall, not just this debate) and just had to make sure he did not make a blunder. Romney employed a perfect Fabian response to Obama's suspected attack mode for the debate. Last night Romney would have had a segue from the last debate to attack Obama on Libya, a topic that one would have to assume Obama had studied hard to defend, instead he let it drop with hardly a mention; even though it was presented more than once. It relates to your point, one that I happened to disagreed with, that Libya is a loser topic for Romney; by not forcing it, Romney still leaves it on the table - Congress is having hearings on it this week - and he does not walk into any pitfalls that may have turned off a lukewarm Romney supporter like yourself. It was reported that Romney himself had decided that non-confrontational, and above the fray, was going to be his persona at this debate and it just might be masterful. Many Conservative writers are stating that they would of taken the low-hanging-fruit of Libya and ran with it but are realizing what a mistake that could of been. As far as winner and loser of this debate, I would say it is clear that Obama lost if judged by conventional wisdom; Obama needed to show Romney as unprepared, uninformed, or a loose cannon, and he did none of it - of course we'll see what the polls have to say about this. The debate was quite display for Romney, and unlike McCain, it shows he sees the big picture. I will also agree with you about a point you have made earlier, I think the Tea-Party, and the Conservatives, might be in for a new "John Roberts" moment but I think they will happily accept that over Obama. I think Romney is running a textbook campaign where he is clearly out maneuvering the President's campaign.

 

[Plorfu]

Latest RCP electoral map after last night's massacre

Waiting to see YankeeFan's breakdown after this.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

The issue is that there isn't any possible number in "whatever the number is" to make it work.

If Romney REALLY had proof that the math for his plan worked like he claims it would, he would make sure everyone knew about it.

 

[17seconds]

This is pretty much how Romney's "plan" works.

 

[DoubleG]

Latest RCP electoral map after last night's massacre

Waiting to see YankeeFan's breakdown after this.

You're going to give someone a stroke with that thing.

 

[pittstownkiller]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

Please keep your feigned outrage to yourself. Wasn't it Obama who had ObamaCare passed without anyone having a chance to read it? I don't think that Romney is too concerned about Obama, BTW.

Please keep your feigned intellect to yourself. You just said that Romney has a plan, but he won't say what it is because "he does not want to reveal his hand." What does that even mean? I don't think Romney is too concerned about Obama stealing his secret plan, either. So then what did you mean when you said Romney does not want to reveal his hand? Why do you believe it would be a good idea for Romney to keep his brilliant plan a secret from the American people until after they vote him into office? Why are you touting how much better his plan is than the path we're currently on when, by your own admission, you don't even know what his plan is? Romney isn't playing poker, he's running to be the President of the United States of America. In an election that's all about the economy, his "plan" is the most important part of his campaign. If he has a plan, it's time to share it.

My intellect is my intellect, I do not believe it can be feigned. Romney stated that he has a plan and outlined it, I repeated that. Romney also stated "that there could be a cap on tax deductions of $50,000, or $20,000, whatever the number is" to get you to a level to balance his proposed increases, I also repeated this. Romney then went on to state that these numbers would have to be presented to Congress for debate so he saw no compelling interest in presenting them now; if that doesn't work for you, and I could see how it might not, then fine but I was just answering questions.

The issue is that there isn't any possible number in "whatever the number is" to make it work.

Incorrect but it has been stated that it cannot be done without touching home mortgage interest deduction; depending on where the number is drawn will determine who it effects.

Wrong again:

To get a sense of how much money we could raise by capping tax deductions, my TPC colleagues have analyzed the resulting revenue gains and distributional impacts of four ways to limit itemized deductions—eliminating them entirely and capping them at $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000—calculated against three benchmarks (current law, current policy, and current policy with 20 percent lower rates and elimination of the AMT). As usual, the current law baseline has all expiring tax cuts actually expiring, while the current policy baseline has almost all of them permanently extended.

Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.

...

Suggesting limits on deductions was Governor Romney’s first public statement about how he might offset the revenue lost by cutting tax rates. Without more specifics, we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/5 - 2 <> 0

I think the problem here is the $5T number that Romney's campaign disavows. Romney uses the removal of deductions to lower the overall number with an increased tax revenue by increased employment.

 

[timschochet]

We now have examples, thanks to the fact checkers, of both guys lying throughout these 3 debates. Some of the lies are about themselves, some of them are about the other guys. Some of the "lies" are actually bending the truth a little bit to make a point, but some of them are outright falsehoods.

I was thinking about this today and what occurs to me is that we should not be astonished that these two men lie in the debates; we should be astonished that they don't lie more often. For the fact is that there is little to be lost, and much to be gained, by lying in the debates. (I speak now in terms of politics!) After all, we know that of the people who watch the debates, 95% of them are never going to read the fact checks. A majority are going to form their impression from the debates and no other sources. So why not lie through your teeth? Or, in the case of Obama last night, simply accuse the other guy of lying about anything and everything? -

 

[The Commish]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending?

the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

You're never going to get an answer here because there isn't one.

The answer according to Romney, is that he will have more people working which will bring in more revenue; whether you choose to believe this, or you choose to believe that Obama is going to magically right the ship that he has been at the helm of for 4 years, is up to you. I also believe that the number bandied by the Administration as for the cost of Romney's policies was $5 trillion, even though that has been deemed incorrect by fact-checking and has been disavowed by the organization that Obama links to in his ads.

more people working and paying taxes is going to cover trillions of $$$? how is he creating these jobs? and if for some reason these jobs don't appear, then what?as an independent voter, I think I'd rather roll the dice on Obama 'magically' righting the ship. it seems as though things are getting better, just not as fast as everyone hoped.

is the $5 trillion number too low or too high? he's admitted to increasing military spending by $2T, correct? and it can't be hard to figure out the effect of a 20% tax cut across the board.

Cheaper energy, stop international cheating on trade, repealing anti-business acts, repealing ObamaCare, lowering corporate taxes, and yes, tax cuts, are his plans to increase job growth; capping of deductions is his plan to pay for his tax cuts. He has a plan and has stated it ad nauseam during the debates; if you choose not to agree with it is one thing but to deny its existence, or to willfully mischaracterize it, is disingenuous.

The math doesn't add up, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

It's like de ja vu all over again....I remember going from thread to thread with Obamacare, but no one listened then either. It's much easier to tell folks once and then laugh at the people who continue to parrot the nonsense.

I'm curious what part of Obamacare were you harping on not adding up.

Actually it was all his promises together with the claim of reducing the deficit. There were WAY too many promises to NOT raise the deficit.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Romney didn't create jobs as a businessman. He made money. And that is fine and the goal of just about everybody in America. But being able to make lots of profits doesn't mean you can run a country. The US economy isn't a business whose goal is to turn a profit. The US government has other duties and priorities. Should it be fiscally responsible? Of course, but that doesn't mean profitable. Every decision shouldn't and cannot be made with an eye towards the bottom line. Should levies not be maintained if their breach destroys property valued at less money than the cost of repair?

Completely agree. But Romney has very few true supporters anyway so there isn't much point arguing about it. They are all voting against Obama or just because he's the Republican.

True. Romney has a better shot than Kerry even though Bush was the true disaster because there are people very motivated to oust Obama no matter who is in office. Coupling that with a lower level of enthusiasm from Obama supporters from 2008, and he can be in trouble.

 

[DoubleG]

We now have examples, thanks to the fact checkers, of both guys lying throughout these 3 debates. Some of the lies are about themselves, some of them are about the other guys. Some of the "lies" are actually bending the truth a little bit to make a point, but some of them are outright falsehoods.

I was thinking about this today and what occurs to me is that we should not be astonished that these two men lie in the debates; we should be astonished that they don't lie more often. For the fact is that there is little to be lost, and much to be gained, by lying in the debates. (I speak now in terms of politics!) After all, we know that of the people who watch the debates, 95% of them are never going to read the fact checks. A majority are going to form their impression from the debates and no other sources. So why not lie through your teeth? Or, in the case of Obama last night, simply accuse the other guy of lying about anything and everything? -

You are basically suggesting the same thing Mr Know It All stated earlier. And I agree to a point. You can't lie (or accuse the other guy of lying when he's not) too often - otherwise it's too easy to come off and be painted as a crooked, dishonest jerk. There's a balance. You have to do so just often enough that you can paint your opponent in the worst possible light (see debate #2 and the Libya issue) while remaining believable...for the most part.

 

[lakerstan]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.

Gotta love Republican logic.

 

[DoubleG]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.Gotta love Republican logic.

Put the alias down, sir. Please step away from the alias.

 

[Plorfu]

After all, we know that of the people who watch the debates, 95% of them are never going to read the fact checks.

I'll withhold comment until the fact-checkers verify this statistic.

 

[timschochet]

Continuing with my lying meme, if I were Romney I'd make the tax plan even better, something like this:

When I am elected, the first thing I will do, through executive order, is cut all income taxes to a straight 10% figure. None of you will pay more than 10%, and all loopholes and exemptions will stay in place. Because this is an executive order, I won't need the approval of Congress. I will also double defense spending, increase Social Security and Medicare payments by 150% (because I know you need the money) and invest 1trillion dollars in each of the "new" energies: solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas. We'll throw a trillion at each of 'em and see which one works. And again, all of this will be done by executive order, don't worry about Congress causing problems. At the same time, I will work with Congress to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. I expect the debt to be fully eliminated by my third year in office.

Now, I know some of you are wondering how this will be paid for. The beauty of my plan is that it pays for itself. The more we reduce taxes, the more revenue is produced. A study of my plan by the Heritage Foundation predicts that it will triple revenues within 6 months of enactment. And that is a conservative estimate.

 

[pantherclub]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.Gotta love Republican logic.

She doesnt happen to drive over 50 miles a day for shopping does she?

 

[lakerstan]

Continuing with my lying meme, if I were Romney I'd make the tax plan even better, something like this:

When I am elected, the first thing I will do, through executive order, is cut all income taxes to a straight 10% figure. None of you will pay more than 10%, and all loopholes and exemptions will stay in place. Because this is an executive order, I won't need the approval of Congress. I will also double defense spending, increase Social Security and Medicare payments by 150% (because I know you need the money) and invest 1trillion dollars in each of the "new" energies: solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas. We'll throw a trillion at each of 'em and see which one works. And again, all of this will be done by executive order, don't worry about Congress causing problems. At the same time, I will work with Congress to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. I expect the debt to be fully eliminated by my third year in office.

Now, I know some of you are wondering how this will be paid for. The beauty of my plan is that it pays for itself. The more we reduce taxes, the more revenue is produced. A study of my plan by the Heritage Foundation predicts that it will triple revenues within 6 months of enactment. And that is a conservative estimate.

Nice wordplay..

 

[squistion]

Right-wingers are going ape#### on Twitter over Obama's bayonet smack-down. Michelle Malkin is shrieking to the Four Winds, insisting this was a huge gaffe ... for Obama! Reminds me of how they tried to spin Romney's "binders full of women" gaffe into "Obama's empty binder" after the second debate. I don't want to start gloating about conservative desperation, but this is some seriously ridiculous stuff. And I have to believe it's mainly aimed at the oblivious base, not at undecideds.

What is really funny is that many are claiming that Obama said that the military no longer uses horses or bayonets, not understading that "fewer" does not mean "none."

 

[17seconds]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.Gotta love Republican logic.

Stop blaming your wife for running up the credit card. It's your fault you haven't fixed all of it by now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I have a 5 point plan for getting america back on track.

1) Lower unemployment. it's way too high

2) Increase jobs. I'll create 12.1 million

3) Decrease taxes for all without increasing our deficit

4) Balance the budget

5) Free ice cream for everyone

With my 5 point plan, I'll get america back on track. I have a vision for the country, and that vision is a better american future. My five point plan is full of good ideas on how to get us back to the america we want to be.

If you want to see more details, go to my website at www.we[cough] err, dot com.

Obama's plan of taxing the wealthy comes nowhere near close to covering any of the costs of his plan of non-specifics; does this upset you?

Granted it's not a line by line account, but this gives some detail. You can quarrel with the numbers if you like, but at least there's something there.Here's the Romney plan details. There are some actual numbers there too, but you'll see that they total maybe half a trillion. Which would be fine- better than nothing- except that Romney also proposes massive tax cuts. When you make large cuts to revenue, you need to propose even larger cuts in spending if you hope to make a dent in the deficit. Romney doesn't do this; that's the problem.

Bottom line- neither guy gives tremendous detail about how they'll cut spending, and that's reasonable IMO- there's only so much they can cut without Congress's help, and that's where the rubber meets the road on spending cuts. But only one guy is selling a huge revenue cut too. I think if a candidate sells voters a massive tax cut, he should bear the added burden of explaining how he's gonna pay for it without ballooning the deficit. I'd say the same of a massive spending plan.

Why would lack of detail about spending be reasonable because it has to go through Congress, but a lack of detail about tax policy is not, although that also has to go through Congress?

I wouldn't put it like that. I'd say that a lack of detail about proposals to trim the deficit is OK from both sides, and in some sense is necessary because the difficulty in cutting spending lies with Congress. But a lack of detail about proposals to expand the deficit are not. If a proposal would cut the deficit, I'll give you some leeway on the details because at least you're advocating a step in the right direction, even if you don't give me details about how exactly you'll take that step. If you ultimately get exactly what you want from Congress, fine, and if you ultimately get something that only bears a slight resemblance, also fine. It's good news either way; you're not proposing something that's gonna get us deeper into trouble. But if a proposal appears to increase the deficit, I think you need to make a very clear argument that either (a) it's so important that it's worth the spending; or (b) you'll make other adjustments to the ledger on either side that will pay for it. IMO Romney has done neither when it comes to his tax cuts.

 

[Slapdash]

Wrong again:

To get a sense of how much money we could raise by capping tax deductions, my TPC colleagues have analyzed the resulting revenue gains and distributional impacts of four ways to limit itemized deductions—eliminating them entirely and capping them at $17,000, $25,000, or $50,000—calculated against three benchmarks (current law, current policy, and current policy with 20 percent lower rates and elimination of the AMT). As usual, the current law baseline has all expiring tax cuts actually expiring, while the current policy baseline has almost all of them permanently extended.

Eliminating all itemized deductions would yield about $2 trillion of additional revenue over ten years if we cut all rates by 20 percent and eliminate the AMT. Capping deductions would generate less additional revenue, and the higher the cap, the smaller the gain. Limiting deductions to $17,000 would increase revenues by nearly $1.7 trillion over ten years. A $25,000 cap would yield roughly $1.3 trillion and a $50,000 cap would raise only about $760 billion.

...

Suggesting limits on deductions was Governor Romney’s first public statement about how he might offset the revenue lost by cutting tax rates. Without more specifics, we can’t say how much revenue such limits would actually raise. But these new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/17/how-much-revenue-would-a-cap-on-itemized-deductions-raise/5 - 2 <> 0

I think the problem here is the $5T number that Romney's campaign disavows. Romney uses the removal of deductions to lower the overall number with an increased tax revenue by increased employment.

So now Romney disavows his pledges to reduce rates across the board 20% and trash the AMT? Because that is where the $5 trillion comes from, and he has been very specific about those two pledges. That is how much revenue you lose. They are still on his website:

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the Death Tax

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

 

[lod01]

he does not want to reveal his hand

What does this even mean? Are you serious with this ####? Romney wants to be President of the United States of America, and one of the biggest reasons he claims to be the most qualified for the job is that he has a plan to create jobs and strengthen the economy - but he won't say what it is? What the #### is he keeping it a secret for? Is he afraid Obama might steal his plan and implement it himself or something? I can't possibly understand the mind that convinces itself that this is reasonable.

It's the mind of a lemming. This dude would pick up the republican candidate's crap if he asked him to.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.Gotta love Republican logic.

Stop blaming your wife for running up the credit card. It's your fault you haven't fixed all of it by now.

I'm the Tea Party. I'm going to do everything I can to block your ability to pay your credit card bills, then I'm going to ##### about the fact that you haven't paid it yet.

 

[Willie Neslon]

My wife charges up all our credit cards while shopping. In order to make the payments, I have to take a second job and I need boots for this job. So I buy the boots. Now my wife complains that I am running up credit card debt by buying the boots, and that I am not doing enough to payoff the bills she ran up.Gotta love Republican logic.

Stop blaming your wife for running up the credit card. It's your fault you haven't fixed all of it by now.

I'm the Tea Party. I'm going to do everything I can to block your ability to pay your credit card bills, then I'm going to ##### about the fact that you haven't paid it yet.

and I'm the credit card company and I am going to take your job because you dont have policy to keep it. and then I will manipulate your balance because you don't understand credit cards

 

[GB FAN]

can someone, anyone, tell me where Romney is going to find 7 trillion $$ to pay for his tax cuts and increased military spending? the moderator asked him point blank last night how he was going to pay for this and he basically avoided the question. 3 debates now and I'm still in the dark. I think he mentioned a 5% reduction in 'discretionary spending' but that can't be anywhere near 7 trillion. I can't, and won't, vote for this guy until I can see what he's going to try to do. what programs is he cutting and what are the associated dollar amounts? what is he going to do with my deductions? If he's just going to increase the deficit, I think I'd rather go with Obama. if he's not increasing the deficit, how is he paying for what he wants to do?

He's had dozens and dozens of chances to talk about this, but he avoids it every single time. All he says is that the numbers add up and he expects people to trust him.By reducing rates and eliminating the AMT, that's a HUGE decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy since AMT is solely a mechanism to make sure people with a lot of deductions still pay a minimum amount of tax. My wife and I paid over $5K in AMT last year. The wealthy are phased out of a lot of deductions already too. Mitt Romney is relying on people being ignorant about taxes and hopefully just believing him because they don't like Obama, but there aren't enough deductions out there to make up the kind of volume he's talking about without hitting some really common ones associated with home ownership or education credits.

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 more in federal income taxes than what they are paying on their current unemployment income, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

 

[Don Quixote]

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 in federal income taxes, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.

Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

I don't think we can all agree to that. If you receive unemployment benefits, that is taxable income.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

After all, we know that of the people who watch the debates, 95% of them are never going to read the fact checks.

Where do you find this?

 

[GB FAN]

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 in federal income taxes, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.

Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

I don't think we can all agree to that. If you receive unemployment benefits, that is taxable income.

Good point, but the overall concept still applies. If each one of those newly employed workers are paying $1,167 more in in federal taxes than they are currently paying on their unemployment you'd still pay for the tax cuts.

 

[humpback]

We now have examples, thanks to the fact checkers, of both guys lying throughout these 3 debates. Some of the lies are about themselves, some of them are about the other guys. Some of the "lies" are actually bending the truth a little bit to make a point, but some of them are outright falsehoods.

I was thinking about this today and what occurs to me is that we should not be astonished that these two men lie in the debates; we should be astonished that they don't lie more often. For the fact is that there is little to be lost, and much to be gained, by lying in the debates. (I speak now in terms of politics!) After all, we know that of the people who watch the debates, 95% of them are never going to read the fact checks. A majority are going to form their impression from the debates and no other sources. So why not lie through your teeth? Or, in the case of Obama last night, simply accuse the other guy of lying about anything and everything? -

Do you finally see why some of us think it would be a good idea to have another option up there?

 

[TobiasFunke]

A decrease in unemployment could easily pay for the tax cuts. Everyone pretty much agrees that Romney's plan will cost $7trillion. Romney believes that his plan will create 12 million additional jobs. I think we can all agree that if a person is unemployed they don't have wages on which they have to pay federal taxes on. Let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million additional jobs are created. If everything else currently in place remains equal and those 6 million people each pay $1,167 in federal income taxes, you'd collect $7trillion in additional taxes which would pay for the tax cuts. That doesn't seem all that improbable to me. You don't have to make that much money to pay $1,167 a year in federal income taxes.

Everyone pays less in taxes yet the federal government takes in more total tax revenue. Doesn't getting 12 million americans back to work seem like a much better way to increase tax revenues than just increasing the taxes on just the 1%?

I don't think we can all agree to that. If you receive unemployment benefits, that is taxable income.

I liked the "let's be conservative and say that as a result of the tax cuts, 6 million new jobs are created" shtick.Considering that there's significant debate over whether there's any relationship at all between tax rates and employment, that assumption strikes me as slightly more than "conservative."

 

[Bo Skiboski]

How did BoneYard dog think obama did in the debate? Thats really all that matters.