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

[Fennis]

Wait, Chet isn't a us citizen?

It's ok, he's part of our common Anglo-Saxon heritage

I vote for deportation. He’s taking the place of some good honest, hard working Mexican folks.

 

[CrossEyed]

Maybe Mitt knew about the emails and that's the reason he stayed away from the Benghazi discussion.

Explain please.

Check the Benghazi thread.

 

[Slapdash]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

Neither of these guys are going balance the budget, you're looking for the Gary Johnson tread or something.I do think an Obama-Republican congress mix probably slows the deficit growth more, like the last two years. I think a Romney-Republican congress probably just cut taxes without cutting or even increasing spending a la Bush. I'm not too concerned about the short term deficit though, personally.

 

[Slapdash]

Romney Won

Ummm....even CNN had it 48% to 40% Obama. It's not like many considered it one sided (HINT: 48% is less than half). You can say whoever you want won - but acting like this one was clear is just silly - it was the closest of the 3 looking at post debate polls.

Losing a poll 48-40 that an 8 point Republican bias over the electorate is a funny way to claim you won.

40% of people polled by CNN said Romney won.I don't understand why people have to argue with one person on the Internet who says Romney won. He may be in the minority, but obviously not alone in his opinion.

The bold is still true. And ridicule isn't the same think as arguing.

Let's try this another way since you seem intent on not getting it. There are more people (52%>48%) that don't think Obama won, than there are that think he did.If you were actually trying to argue, you might actually have a valid point. The fact that you are merely ridiculing...and continue to argue that somehow you are justified in doing so, is only making you look even more silly.

My mistake, I thought this was the place to be silly.

Well then in that case, carry on. But be careful...there is fine line between silly and ### ####.

Don't I know.

 

[chet]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

So as soon as a member of the ol boys club gets in there, trillions are instantly injected into the economy. "He's one of us" OKBusiness hated Clinton and the economy skyrocketed. Bush comes in and it went in the ####ter. There's more to it than that. Business doesn't make investment decisions based on who is president. And the Dow is up about 10% in the last year so Wall St isn't exactly hurting.

Business in no way hated Clinton. I would vote for Clinton over Romney.

 

[datonn]

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

I'm curious how many people who share this talking point actually own their own business (or are where the buck stops related to the creation of new employment opportunities within their companies, not just filling jobs that are vacant or having someone else tell you that you've got permission to hire someone).From 2008-2012, my own business has grown from 8 people to 15. Revenues have more than tripled. I've got people on three continents selling on my/our behalf...and we're bringing well over six figures back from other nations here into the good 'ol US of A. Business is BOOMING under Barack Obama! That said, have I added as many positions as I could have? No. Care to know why?

1. Gridlock in D.C. The House and Senate cannot pass gas, much less anything remotely close to legislation that both parties can/will live with.

2. I fear a Romney/Ryan Executive Branch, and what it will mean related to the state of our economy (and the health of our middle class, and the level of desperation within our lower/impoverished class) come 2015-2016+.

Has absolutely ZERO to do with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (I get that right...emphasizing the "Hussein," so it'll remind people of Saddam Hussein, Muslims, 9/11, et al?). It has everything to do with a Legislative Branch that is broken, inept, and disgusting in their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves and their own immediate agendas and constituencies. But because Obama's POTUS, it's obviously his fault, right?!

 

[urbanhack]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Blow up Congress. It's time.

 

[DoubleG]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

 

[Fennis]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

I don't think he will be more liberal, but I do think he will spend way more money.

 

[17seconds]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

I don't think any of us know how a Romney presidency would go. The man is a windsock at the airport.

 

[17seconds]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

I don't think he will be more liberal, but I do think he will spend way more money.

Probably right, after the GOP talks him into a land war in Iran.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

I don't think any of us know how a Romney presidency would go. The man is a windsock at the airport.

As was discussed by some of the politicos today, a win by Mitt would have profound influence on how future campaigns are run. I think you have to reward consistency. What Mitt is doing is showing that nothing you say matters.

 

[DoubleG]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

I don't think he will be more liberal, but I do think he will spend way more money.

Probably right, after the GOP talks him into a land war in Iran.

Yep, the Iran War is part of the 100 days agenda. Right before that he is going to China to piss in Hu Jintao's face. Afterwards Romney is going to ban alcohol, give free automatic weapons to anyone who voted for him and round up illegals and use them as human shields in the Iran War. Then he'll beat up a nun and light a puppy on fire while wearing a shirt that says "PETA can suck it"

 

[17seconds]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

I don't think he will be more liberal, but I do think he will spend way more money.

Probably right, after the GOP talks him into a land war in Iran.

Yep, the Iran War is part of the 100 days agenda. Right before that he is going to China to piss in Hu Jintao's face. Afterwards Romney is going to ban alcohol, give free automatic weapons to anyone who voted for him and round up illegals and use them as human shields in the Iran War. Then he'll beat up a nun and light a puppy on fire while wearing a shirt that says "PETA can suck it"

Nah, none of that.Land war in Iran though. It will be up to Romney to say no to it.

 

[Hang 10]

Maybe Mitt knew about the emails and that's the reason he stayed away from the Benghazi discussion.

Explain please.

Check the Benghazi thread.

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials "carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time."

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

"Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely," the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

 

[cosjobs]

Romney Won by Focusing on the Big Picture

President obama was well-coached in the final Presidential debate; he came across as an articulate, aggressive debater, but he was trying too hard to dominate and came across as condescending and petty as he repeatedly attacked Romney with a "gotcha" smirk and interrupted often in ways that were all too reminiscent of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

What is with this condescending crap? He's the President of the United States.You know what is condescending? Romney telling the president of our country "you'll get your turn to talk"

Are you suggesting that it's unconstitutional to tell the president to wait his turn? You know, it's also considered rude to interrupt people while they're talking. Maybe he should wait his turn like he's supposed to.

Matthews is going off the deep end, I agree.Just try to imagine the roles reversed. If Romney was president and that wacky lib Obama told Mr. Reagan Jr to wait his turn before talking.,, Your head would explode at Obama's display of arrogance.

Mine wouldn't. Both need to follow the rules of the debate regardless of party affiliation or being the incumbent.

So did you notice the disrespect Romney gave the procedures and moderator in earlier debates? seriously? There were no complaints from you then and they were much more egregious than O's deeds.

 

[Maelstrom]

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

I'm curious how many people who share this talking point actually own their own business (or are where the buck stops related to the creation of new employment opportunities within their companies, not just filling jobs that are vacant or having someone else tell you that you've got permission to hire someone).From 2008-2012, my own business has grown from 8 people to 15. Revenues have more than tripled. I've got people on three continents selling on my/our behalf...and we're bringing well over six figures back from other nations here into the good 'ol US of A. Business is BOOMING under Barack Obama! That said, have I added as many positions as I could have? No. Care to know why?

1. Gridlock in D.C. The House and Senate cannot pass gas, much less anything remotely close to legislation that both parties can/will live with.

2. I fear a Romney/Ryan Executive Branch, and what it will mean related to the state of our economy (and the health of our middle class, and the level of desperation within our lower/impoverished class) come 2015-2016+.

Has absolutely ZERO to do with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (I get that right...emphasizing the "Hussein," so it'll remind people of Saddam Hussein, Muslims, 9/11, et al?). It has everything to do with a Legislative Branch that is broken, inept, and disgusting in their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves and their own immediate agendas and constituencies. But because Obama's POTUS, it's obviously his fault, right?!

 

[chet]

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

I'm curious how many people who share this talking point actually own their own business (or are where the buck stops related to the creation of new employment opportunities within their companies, not just filling jobs that are vacant or having someone else tell you that you've got permission to hire someone).From 2008-2012, my own business has grown from 8 people to 15. Revenues have more than tripled. I've got people on three continents selling on my/our behalf...and we're bringing well over six figures back from other nations here into the good 'ol US of A. Business is BOOMING under Barack Obama! That said, have I added as many positions as I could have? No. Care to know why?

1. Gridlock in D.C. The House and Senate cannot pass gas, much less anything remotely close to legislation that both parties can/will live with.

2. I fear a Romney/Ryan Executive Branch, and what it will mean related to the state of our economy (and the health of our middle class, and the level of desperation within our lower/impoverished class) come 2015-2016+.

Has absolutely ZERO to do with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (I get that right...emphasizing the "Hussein," so it'll remind people of Saddam Hussein, Muslims, 9/11, et al?). It has everything to do with a Legislative Branch that is broken, inept, and disgusting in their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves and their own immediate agendas and constituencies. But because Obama's POTUS, it's obviously his fault, right?!

With all due respect to Datonn, he's not one of the businesses I was referring to that is hoarding big $.

 

[chet]

So did you notice the disrespect Romney gave the procedures and moderator in earlier debates? seriously? There were no complaints from you then and they were much more egregious than O's deeds.

I wasn't supplied a list of the rules but it's pretty common knowledge that interrupting is against the rules.Don't you live in Texas?

 

[datonn]

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

I'm curious how many people who share this talking point actually own their own business (or are where the buck stops related to the creation of new employment opportunities within their companies, not just filling jobs that are vacant or having someone else tell you that you've got permission to hire someone).From 2008-2012, my own business has grown from 8 people to 15. Revenues have more than tripled. I've got people on three continents selling on my/our behalf...and we're bringing well over six figures back from other nations here into the good 'ol US of A. Business is BOOMING under Barack Obama! That said, have I added as many positions as I could have? No. Care to know why?

1. Gridlock in D.C. The House and Senate cannot pass gas, much less anything remotely close to legislation that both parties can/will live with.

2. I fear a Romney/Ryan Executive Branch, and what it will mean related to the state of our economy (and the health of our middle class, and the level of desperation within our lower/impoverished class) come 2015-2016+.

Has absolutely ZERO to do with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (I get that right...emphasizing the "Hussein," so it'll remind people of Saddam Hussein, Muslims, 9/11, et al?). It has everything to do with a Legislative Branch that is broken, inept, and disgusting in their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves and their own immediate agendas and constituencies. But because Obama's POTUS, it's obviously his fault, right?!

With all due respect to Datonn, he's not one of the businesses I was referring to that is hoarding big $.

No disrespect taken. I'm just curious though...aren't small businesses the engine that makes our economy run? Being a little cute/smug with that reply (not directed at you, Chet). But let's just say that I know more and have about two decades more personal, first-hand experience when it comes to small business and job creation than the average 10-20 people on this board, combined. And it's pretty obvious that most of them are regurgitating what they are being told to say/think. Rather than calling upon personal experience on the subject.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

I don't think any of us know how a Romney presidency would go. The man is a windsock at the airport.

As was discussed by some of the politicos today, a win by Mitt would have profound influence on how future campaigns are run. I think you have to reward consistency. What Mitt is doing is showing that nothing you say matters.

Just like Obama has done with his campaigns.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

I don't think any of us know how a Romney presidency would go. The man is a windsock at the airport.

As was discussed by some of the politicos today, a win by Mitt would have profound influence on how future campaigns are run. I think you have to reward consistency. What Mitt is doing is showing that nothing you say matters.

Just like Obama has done with his campaigns.

Well, no.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I am lost now - who wants to cut taxes? Who wants to raise taxes? Who wants to leave them the same? Does anyone want to cut spending or perhaps spend more wisely so that perhaps we could live within the constructs of say...a budget? Not saying it would work, but it is pretty successful for us and we have a family of 7 (my wife and I and 5 kids). Oddly, no significant debt because ...well we live within our means.

At the end of the day this country is pretty much going to run the exact same way whether Obama or Romney are President.hell Romney might end up being more liberal than Obama if he actually wins.

Now you're just trying to scare BYD.

I don't think any of us know how a Romney presidency would go. The man is a windsock at the airport.

As was discussed by some of the politicos today, a win by Mitt would have profound influence on how future campaigns are run. I think you have to reward consistency. What Mitt is doing is showing that nothing you say matters.

Just like Obama has done with his campaigns.

Well, no.

Well, yes.

 

[Zegras11]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

So as soon as a member of the ol boys club gets in there, trillions are instantly injected into the economy. "He's one of us" OKBusiness hated Clinton and the economy skyrocketed. Bush comes in and it went in the ####ter. There's more to it than that. Business doesn't make investment decisions based on who is president. And the Dow is up about 10% in the last year so Wall St isn't exactly hurting.

1. The economy skyrocketed because the three largest segments of baby boomers saw their significant lifetime buying patterns start to overlap while Clinton was Pres. This started around 1992.2. The economy went into the ####ter during the last two years of Bush, and simply because those three segments of baby boomers had just about stopped all of their significant lifetime purchases.3. Ever watch CNBC? For at least a year now, for the most part, CEO's and the like have been coming on and saying the uncertainty of Obamacare and other issues have them holding back investment decisions. Extra cash piled up doesn't create many jobs at all. Investment creates jobs and they simply aren't investing. Investing in new ideas creates jobs.Investing in new equipment can create jobs for those that make the equipment. And so on...The cycle is down right now and it keeps feeding on itself and the only thing the govt keeps doing is throwing QE's to keep assets artificially propped up.Romney wants to create an environment that gets the cycle positive again. Whatever that winds up being, it's 10000x better than what Obama is trying to get done now. Obama totally lied about the GM bankruptcy thing. Go read the opt ed. A managed bankruptcy would have left the same employment numbers without leaving TAXPAYERS owning most of GM that a few weeks ago, was at a $53 billion loss.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

So as soon as a member of the ol boys club gets in there, trillions are instantly injected into the economy. "He's one of us" OKBusiness hated Clinton and the economy skyrocketed. Bush comes in and it went in the ####ter. There's more to it than that. Business doesn't make investment decisions based on who is president. And the Dow is up about 10% in the last year so Wall St isn't exactly hurting.

Business in no way hated Clinton. I would vote for Clinton over Romney.

Clinton hates you.

 

[Daywalker]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

If they are doing so well, as to hoard trillions, why are tax cuts needed to free up capital and spur investment?

 

[timschochet]

W

31 - There has been no progress with Russia. These are two great adversaries and they are arming the worlds despots and they have felt completely immune from any American pressure. There has been no progress towards disarming, and they are actively marketing their arms. Also, obama, when he thought he was off recording, told Medvedev to give him time – after he wins his last election he will have more flexibility. What does that mean?

32 - obama screwed Poland.

33 - He screwed the Czech Republic.

34 - obama slashed our nuclear deterrent. Mitt Romney will redeploy our missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. obama agreed to take out the shield and gave no notice to our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic. He removed it because Russia demanded it. These are horrific appeasements.

So hilarious.

 

[timschochet]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

If they are doing so well, as to hoard trillions, why are tax cuts needed to free up capital and spur investment?

Whenever I read about all these hoarded trillions, I have this picture in my mind of Uncle Scrooge's money vault, with gold and silver coins in huge piles. And Uncle Scrooge is saying (in his duck voice): "If only Romney were President, I'd feel safe to spend some of this money!"

 

[tommyboy]

haven't followed this thread, don't know if this was posted yet or not but here's a great example of why a lot of people on the left are seemingly caught by surprise when events on the ground don't match up with what they see in the media. This guy is a ####### idiot and a waste of oxygen. He makes you dumber for having heard him and he gives people on the left, in the media in general, and NBC in particular, a very bad name.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/chris-mathews-calls-romney-support-racial-hatred/

only thing missing is the pompoms and a straightjacket.

 

[Daywalker]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

If they are doing so well, as to hoard trillions, why are tax cuts needed to free up capital and spur investment?

Whenever I read about all these hoarded trillions, I have this picture in my mind of Uncle Scrooge's money vault, with gold and silver coins in huge piles. And Uncle Scrooge is saying (in his duck voice): "If only Romney were President, I'd feel safe to spend some of this money!"

It's just one of the many conundrums conservatives run into when they oppose everything Obama does out of spite. Like despising freeloaders yet oppossing the individual mandate, originally a conservative proposal.

 

[timschochet]

haven't followed this thread, don't know if this was posted yet or not but here's a great example of why a lot of people on the left are seemingly caught by surprise when events on the ground don't match up with what they see in the media. This guy is a ####### idiot and a waste of oxygen. He makes you dumber for having heard him and he gives people on the left, in the media in general, and NBC in particular, a very bad name.

http://www.bizpacrev...-racial-hatred/

only thing missing is the pompoms and a straightjacket.

While Matthews emphasizes racism more than I would, I think the gist of his comments here are absolutely on target. In all three debates, Romney has completely repudiated the conservative movement in this country. He has essentially ripped apart everything the Tea Party believes in, and most of what the social conservatives believe in. Last night he tore into neo-conservative foreign policy and basically aligned himself with Obama, just as he's done all along. All of this should make the right wing in this country outraged, even as it makes me (a moderate centrist) very happy. But it doesn't matter. The right hates Obama so much that they'd vote for anyone to defeat him, which is what they're doing. Chris Matthews is correct.

 

[tommyboy]

haven't followed this thread, don't know if this was posted yet or not but here's a great example of why a lot of people on the left are seemingly caught by surprise when events on the ground don't match up with what they see in the media. This guy is a ####### idiot and a waste of oxygen. He makes you dumber for having heard him and he gives people on the left, in the media in general, and NBC in particular, a very bad name.

http://www.bizpacrev...-racial-hatred/

only thing missing is the pompoms and a straightjacket.

While Matthews emphasizes racism more than I would, I think the gist of his comments here are absolutely on target. In all three debates, Romney has completely repudiated the conservative movement in this country. He has essentially ripped apart everything the Tea Party believes in, and most of what the social conservatives believe in. Last night he tore into neo-conservative foreign policy and basically aligned himself with Obama, just as he's done all along. All of this should make the right wing in this country outraged, even as it makes me (a moderate centrist) very happy. But it doesn't matter. The right hates Obama so much that they'd vote for anyone to defeat him, which is what they're doing. Chris Matthews is correct.

calling people that support Romney racists is wrong, and stupid. I hope you don't agree with that, for your sake.we have two choices for president, if the tea party was a major 3rd party, they could nominate their own guy, but it isn't and they can't. Like all elections, people vote for the guy that most aligns with their own beliefs and values. In this case, we have a man that has a 4 year track record, and it is horrible. You don't have to be a racist, or "hates Obama so much" is your words, to vote against him. Just look at his record. chronic 8% unemployment, 16 Trillion in debt, annual Trillion dollar budget deficits, haven't passed a budge in almost 4 years, credit downgrades, resurgence of Al Qaeda, putting a man in jail for freedom of speech (by the way the guy is still in jail and will not get a court apperance til 3 days after the election), ramming Obamacare down our throats, record numbers of disability and food stamp recipients, high energy costs, thousand of more federal regulations, and no plan for the next 4 years.

Chris Matthews was so wrong, and so out of line that it makes me wonder if he isn't mentally ill.

And here's another tip for you, the "right wing" in this country is about as big as the "left wing" in this country. There's like 10-15% hardcore partisans on either side of the spectrum, those are your wings. The other ~70% of us are somewhere inbetween. This is a big problem on the left, they imagine their political opposition is a bogeyman right winger that loves nothing but "Merica, guns and white people. In fact their opposition is people just like them that think maybe we can do this better than the last 4 years.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I can't believe that chet actually hedged with you.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Matthews has surpassed Limbaugh and Coulter on the d-bag scale, which is no easy task.

 

[Daywalker]

haven't followed this thread, don't know if this was posted yet or not but here's a great example of why a lot of people on the left are seemingly caught by surprise when events on the ground don't match up with what they see in the media. This guy is a ####### idiot and a waste of oxygen. He makes you dumber for having heard him and he gives people on the left, in the media in general, and NBC in particular, a very bad name.

http://www.bizpacrev...-racial-hatred/

only thing missing is the pompoms and a straightjacket.

While Matthews emphasizes racism more than I would, I think the gist of his comments here are absolutely on target. In all three debates, Romney has completely repudiated the conservative movement in this country. He has essentially ripped apart everything the Tea Party believes in, and most of what the social conservatives believe in. Last night he tore into neo-conservative foreign policy and basically aligned himself with Obama, just as he's done all along. All of this should make the right wing in this country outraged, even as it makes me (a moderate centrist) very happy. But it doesn't matter. The right hates Obama so much that they'd vote for anyone to defeat him, which is what they're doing. Chris Matthews is correct.

calling people that support Romney racists is wrong, and stupid. I hope you don't agree with that, for your sake.we have two choices for president, if the tea party was a major 3rd party, they could nominate their own guy, but it isn't and they can't. Like all elections, people vote for the guy that most aligns with their own beliefs and values. In this case, we have a man that has a 4 year track record, and it is horrible. You don't have to be a racist, or "hates Obama so much" is your words, to vote against him. Just look at his record. chronic 8% unemployment, 16 Trillion in debt, annual Trillion dollar budget deficits, haven't passed a budge in almost 4 years, credit downgrades, resurgence of Al Qaeda, putting a man in jail for freedom of speech (by the way the guy is still in jail and will not get a court apperance til 3 days after the election), ramming Obamacare down our throats, record numbers of disability and food stamp recipients, high energy costs, thousand of more federal regulations, and no plan for the next 4 years.

Chris Matthews was so wrong, and so out of line that it makes me wonder if he isn't mentally ill.

And here's another tip for you, the "right wing" in this country is about as big as the "left wing" in this country. There's like 10-15% hardcore partisans on either side of the spectrum, those are your wings. The other ~70% of us are somewhere inbetween. This is a big problem on the left, they imagine their political opposition is a bogeyman right winger that loves nothing but "Merica, guns and white people. In fact their opposition is people just like them that think maybe we can do this better than the last 4 years.

If everyone of age voted the Republicans would be in a world of hurt.Obama for the individual mandate, extended Bush tax-cuts, continued Bush foreign policy and who was against gay marriage in 2008. Someone who did not prosecute anyone of note in the aftermatch of one of biggest banking frauds perpetuated on the American public. He'd be an ideal Republican candidate if everyone had to vote.

 

[tommyboy]

I can't believe that chet actually hedged with you.

why? and why is it funny? talk to me like i'm in 3rd grade here, i'm clueless.

 

[Zegras11]

He's created a few jobs in his day.

 

[Daywalker]

Why didn't any moderator in any of the debates ask the candidates to raise their hands if they were for a 10/1 deal regarding spending cuts/taxes?

What the hell would Romney have done?



One of the glaring moments of the Republican primaries. How the hell does that not get asked? Left-wing bias by the moderators?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Democrat Jewish NY Assemblyman Heads to FL to Stump for RomneyIn a move to enlighten the Jews of Florida about the dangers of reelecting Barack Obama, Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat, is heading to South Florida to convince Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney.Hikind is convinced that the election is of huge importance for America and Israel, saying:“This is one of the most important elections I have ever been a part of. I hope to convince my fellow democrats that the choice this year should be a Republican. Looking at the last four years, I can’t think of a single area where we have been successful. People in Florida have asked me to come down and speak to Democratic voters. I am more than happy to do my part to help and, in fact, I made that offer on national television when I appeared with Neil Cavuto on Fox News. I am going down there, as a Democrat, to speak to Democrats about my concerns.”

:recordscratch:

 

[chet]

Major problems for Obama from Ben Ghazi. Rightfully so.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Your math is off. 6 mil times 1k is 7 billion per year. You're off by a factor of 100 to make 7 trillion over 10 years.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Major problems for Obama from Ben Ghazi. Rightfully so.

I think it is why Romney left it on the table during the debate; why become the political spearhead going after the President when Congress is going to go after him maybe from a cover-up angle.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I can't believe that chet actually hedged with you.

why? and why is it funny? talk to me like i'm in 3rd grade here, i'm clueless.

If Romney wins chet gets $1200 from Otis and Otis will end up owing you $250If Barry wins chet owes Otis $250 and you will end up owing Otis $250So he effectively turned his $500 risked to earn $1450 (+290)into a $250 risked to earn $1200 (+480)I'm still waiting for him to bet someone that Barry wins for $249.

 

[The Commish]

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.

He's saying his proposal will cut the deficit- both guys are. Are you saying you believe one but not the other?Let's be honest here- neither guy is very interested in giving specifics, and the reality is it's all pretty moot since neither plan has any chance at becoming law as proposed.

It's not about one guy but not another. It's about one idea but not another. I don't much care about the details of your proposal to trim spending. Both guys are proposing that, and even if you completely fail to implement your plan we're no worse off than we started budget-wise. But if you are proposing to drastically cut taxes (which only one guy is doing), it's entirely possible that we're gonna be a LOT worse off than we started budget-wise. If you want to sell that to me, I'm gonna need to see your work.

Romney's plan is closer to "9-9-9" then real policy. Just smoke and mirrors. Wouldn't worry about it being enacted.

You're kidding right? Yeah, the rich people won't pass a bill to lower their taxes

 

[The Commish]

Chet doesn't give a #### about our president, he just want a guy to lower the taxes he pays into the system he is benefiting from.

You have no idea what motivates me, obviously, It may surprise you that I truly believe Romney is a better choice for the country. I've said it many times before that the main issue the country is facing is jobs, and Mitt is hands down the better choice here. Business trusts him. Get people back to work, and the economy will get back on track.

I'm amazed you believe Romney's policies will make any measurable difference. Rewinding back to Bush-era taxes isn't going to all of a sudden turn the economy around.The economy is going to slowly recover over the next 4 years and it won't matter whether the president is Romney or Obama. So I'm voting for Obama because other than this economic pipe dream Romney has been selling he has absolutely nothing else. He'll just be jerked in every direction by a Republican party that has no identity anymore. No thanks.

Absolutely not. Business doesn't trust BO. As a result, they are hoarding trillions. Get a president in there that business can trust, and business starts investing. People get hired. etc.

you really believe this? Man some of you people are myopic.

All the CEOs he talks to say they are scared of Obama

 

[JoePlumber]

Just look at his record. chronic 8% unemployment, 16 Trillion in debt, annual Trillion dollar budget deficits, haven't passed a budge in almost 4 years, credit downgrades, resurgence of Al Qaeda, putting a man in jail for freedom of speech (by the way the guy is still in jail and will not get a court apperance til 3 days after the election), ramming Obamacare down our throats, record numbers of disability and food stamp recipients, high energy costs, thousand of more federal regulations, and no plan for the next 4 years.

Wait...I am being told this is all Bush's fault. Is that true?

 

[Slapdash]

Major problems for Obama from Ben Ghazi. Rightfully so.

I think it is why Romney left it on the table during the debate; why become the political spearhead going after the President when Congress is going to go after him maybe from a cover-up angle.

I think there is a simpler answer: Romney came off very poorly doing this in the previous debate.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Major problems for Obama from Ben Ghazi. Rightfully so.

I think it is why Romney left it on the table during the debate; why become the political spearhead going after the President when Congress is going to go after him maybe from a cover-up angle.

I think there is a simpler answer: Romney came off very poorly doing this in the previous debate.

and that was reflected in the polls....oh wait, it wasn't

 

[Boston]

Major problems for Obama from Ben Ghazi. Rightfully so.

I think it is why Romney left it on the table during the debate; why become the political spearhead going after the President when Congress is going to go after him maybe from a cover-up angle.

I think there is a simpler answer: Romney came off very poorly doing this in the previous debate.

Maybe but I think his strategy was different... Obama had to be beyond prepared for this question...it seemed very obvious it was going to be asked... being the Commander-in-Chief he would be able to deliver a heartfelt/how dare you question me answer whether it was true or not...that is a tough pissing contest to get into with an incumbent...by not addressing it Romney is going to get far more bang for his buck as this story unfolds and causes political damage to Obama...at the time I was not happy that Romney did not hit this topic harder but in hindsight it could turn out to be a very wise move as it appears a cover-up may have happened...if that is the case Obama is going to have to deal with this with less than two weeks left in the campaign and that is a huge negative...