Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Debate

130 posts in this topic

Posted

Btw, English is my 2nd language. What's ur excuse?

lol, you owned him on this, nice.

I watched it until about 9:50 and couldn't keep my eyes open any longer...

My thoughts, in no particular order:

Jim Lehrer is the worst host ever. Get somebody that's not 95 years old and can control it, holy poo... or put the candidates in a glass box and cut off the mic when their time is up...

Romney looked prepared and Obama looked bored and tired...

Obama kind of dug himself into a hole with his comments like the teacher with 42 kids, etc... he acted like when he gets elected he's gonna fix all these problems... um, hello, you're already president... fix them now. Pointing out current problem and solutions he's going to have for after he's elected is not the best debate strategy.

I've seen Romney come off as an elitist douchey type before, but I didn't get that vibe from this debate as much... I could actually see the guy being pretty presidential.

Romney def won the debate from what I saw, but we'll see how it goes, he's got a lot of ground to make up for... and I'm still undecided on who I'm voting for. I really, really wish there was a valid 3rd party candidate that wouldn't just suck votes away from these two...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The debate was live.

No help or hurt or spin or selected quotes from the media to "form" opinions in the electorate. Not surprised that folks found Romney to be much different than he has been protrayed by the "even handed" media. And in turn, found Obama, with no help, to be void of an ability to think on his feet. He is a very "handled" president. It showed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Didn't watch it, but I do like Lehrer. He is a really smart guy, but probably not the best for this format (ie asking question which the candidates will never answer).

Fwiw, neither candidate will do what they say they will, primarily because there is a huge difference between running for office, and actually being in office, and having to deal with congress and the courts and entrenched bureaucracy in government.

I do think Romney has a better chance to accomplish things because republicans will control the house. They could control the Senate as well, because the Democrats have more vulnerable seats in this election, but that remains to be seen.

But even if Obama wins (and he probably will), I don't think he will be quite as arrogant as he was during his first administration. He really thought that he could convince people to follow him, which showed how naive he was. I don't think he will make that mistake in his next term. And some republicans might be more willing to work with him on a few issues because they know this is his last term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thats funny, its a well documented maxim in politics that Mitt Romney will change his policies at the drop of a hat if he thinks it will help him get elected

Also Mitt was pretty clear last night that there will be no "massive cuts to government" if he gets in charge

Oh, and Ron Paul would have been destroyed because these debates are about telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear

I'll have to concede that Ron Paul wouldn't fare well as the republican primaries bore that out.

As for a politician playing for the vote... what else is new?

The post that I responded to was simply about how tax revenues can be raised without raising the rate. Obama came off like the douche in "laying out an informative point" with his basic arithmetic comment.

It's the same crap you hear in academia from people that think they're smart when they clearly aren't versed in reality nor have they applied the supposed critical thinking skills that are supposed to be honed in our country's joke for higher education.

That simple arithmetic escaped Obama when he failed to figure that more people paying their actual fair share (not from the 35% to 45% bump for the wealthiest in America as opposed to 15% for the lowest tax bracket). Millions more actually contributing to revenue generates more money than a few persons paying more while cutting salaries and positions to maintain their bottom line which further increases the deficit of entitlements as they currently exist.

The American Dream of living free is dead. People are interested in buying the slickest used car salesmen time and again after being burned for the umpteenth time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well yeah, if the economy is doing well then more people have good paying jobs and thus pay more in taxes. Thats why we ran a budget surplus under Clinton. But if you took spending and taxes back to the exact same level as Clinton's presidency, we would be still have a massive budget deficit now.

Romney's plan is to raise taxes revenue because the economy is going to magically fix itself once he is elected. Hell, I'm all for that idea too, but I have my doubts about its feasibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'll have to concede that Ron Paul wouldn't fare well as the republican primaries bore that out.

As for a politician playing for the vote... what else is new?

The post that I responded to was simply about how tax revenues can be raised without raising the rate. Obama came off like the douche in "laying out an informative point" with his basic arithmetic comment.

It's the same crap you hear in academia from people that think they're smart when they clearly aren't versed in reality nor have they applied the supposed critical thinking skills that are supposed to be honed in our country's joke for higher education.

That simple arithmetic escaped Obama when he failed to figure that more people paying their actual fair share (not from the 35% to 45% bump for the wealthiest in America as opposed to 15% for the lowest tax bracket). Millions more actually contributing to revenue generates more money than a few persons paying more while cutting salaries and positions to maintain their bottom line which further increases the deficit of entitlements as they currently exist.

The American Dream of living free is dead. People are interested in buying the slickest used car salesmen time and again after being burned for the umpteenth time.

The problem with Romney's plan to grow revenue through putting more people back to work is that many of the people that are unemployed currently are people that would be in the middle or lower middle class if they had jobs. Those people likely aren't going to be paying federal income taxes anyway, especially if they have kids. Sure they'd help contribute to medicare and SS, but they wouldn't help the overall government budget (other than they would no longer be receiving unemployment pay or other government benefits).

Restructuring of the tax code has to be done. We can't just rely on putting more people back to work because those without jobs aren't likely to be high income earners anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well yeah, if the economy is doing well then more people have good paying jobs and thus pay more in taxes. Thats why we ran a budget surplus under Clinton. But if you took spending and taxes back to the exact same level as Clinton's presidency, we would be still have a massive budget deficit now.

Romney's plan is to raise taxes revenue because the economy is going to magically fix itself once he is elected. Hell, I'm all for that idea too, but I have my doubts about its feasibility

If you doubt it, then I would suggest picking up a Wall Street Journal and look at what the people that make decisions in business say. Don't take my word for it. Get it directly from the horse's mouth.

The free market can take a serious hit when you have an event like a 9/11 (hence the purpose of the strike). However, outside of that, if government can get out of the way (save for preventing monopolies and enforcing laws against fraud) free enterprise will fare tremendously better. People as consumers can then pick the winners and losers rather than a few bureaucrats in DC that think they know what's best for the entire country (and in some cases, the world).

George Bush started something absolutely horrible at the end of his presidency with TARP and his stimulus bills. I understand the reasoning that we needed to keep the debt solvent for foreign investment, but the current administration has taken the concept and passed out free candy ever since. Never mind that our kids will have to shoulder the burden of paying the debt (likely through runaway inflation... or as Bernanke calls it, "Quantitative Easement") that we racked up. "Great work son! Here's my credit card bill. Good luck with that!"

Something that escapes this generation of Americans is the discipline of failure. If you aren't allowed to fail at the expense of your peers, then you have no reason to fix what's broken. Meanwhile, everyone else has to shoulder your continual fugups because the bureaucrats decided that they're too important to endure managed bankruptcy like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem with Romney's plan to grow revenue through putting more people back to work is that many of the people that are unemployed currently are people that would be in the middle or lower middle class if they had jobs. Those people likely aren't going to be paying federal income taxes anyway, especially if they have kids. Sure they'd help contribute to medicare and SS, but they wouldn't help the overall government budget (other than they would no longer be receiving unemployment pay or other government benefits).

Restructuring of the tax code has to be done. We can't just rely on putting more people back to work because those without jobs aren't likely to be high income earners anyway.

I agree with the notion to fix the tax code. It's why I support the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 13).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not that I am pro tax, but I think the fair tax or consumption tax would favor the wealthy waaay too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not that I am pro tax, but I think the fair tax or consumption tax would favor the wealthy waaay too much.

Monthly standard of living cut for everyone. You only pay taxes on new items. No loopholes to exploit as it has existed in the current system for over a century. The notion of a progressive tax is essentially punishing a taxpayer for doing better... it isn't only ethically deplorable, but also a great way to kill growth of all kinds as incentives are no longer worthwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem with Romney's plan to grow revenue through putting more people back to work is that many of the people that are unemployed currently are people that would be in the middle or lower middle class if they had jobs. Those people likely aren't going to be paying federal income taxes anyway, especially if they have kids. Sure they'd help contribute to medicare and SS, but they wouldn't help the overall government budget (other than they would no longer be receiving unemployment pay or other government benefits).

Restructuring of the tax code has to be done. We can't just rely on putting more people back to work because those without jobs aren't likely to be high income earners anyway.

F the income for the gov't. The point is to put money in everyones pocket and in turn, back into the economy. It would be people being hired on every level, not just low income families that don't pay tax. It's engineers, doctors(those who still want to be one), trades, and executives alike. Small business makes up 54% of working Americans and lots of those people that lost their job were making 100k plus and paid plenty of tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you doubt it, then I would suggest picking up a Wall Street Journal and look at what the people that make decisions in business say. Don't take my word for it. Get it directly from the horse's mouth.

The free market can take a serious hit when you have an event like a 9/11 (hence the purpose of the strike). However, outside of that, if government can get out of the way (save for preventing monopolies and enforcing laws against fraud) free enterprise will fare tremendously better. People as consumers can then pick the winners and losers rather than a few bureaucrats in DC that think they know what's best for the entire country (and in some cases, the world).

George Bush started something absolutely horrible at the end of his presidency with TARP and his stimulus bills. I understand the reasoning that we needed to keep the debt solvent for foreign investment, but the current administration has taken the concept and passed out free candy ever since. Never mind that our kids will have to shoulder the burden of paying the debt (likely through runaway inflation... or as Bernanke calls it, "Quantitative Easement") that we racked up. "Great work son! Here's my credit card bill. Good luck with that!"

Something that escapes this generation of Americans is the discipline of failure. If you aren't allowed to fail at the expense of your peers, then you have no reason to fix what's broken. Meanwhile, everyone else has to shoulder your continual fugups because the bureaucrats decided that they're too important to endure managed bankruptcy like everyone else.

Look, I agree that a free market governed through effective regulations is the best way to run an economy. But you cant claim that all government involvement hurts the economy.

For instance China's government is very intertwined with the market, yet they have experienced massive economic growth over the last 20 years. Not saying I want to become China, but it is okay to look around and imitate the successes of other nations even if they dont happen to love freedom as much as we do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites