Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Debate


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#91 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,712 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:46 AM

Huge amount of buyers remorse in the country. Obama's performance only cemented their feelings.

Bad night for the empty suit, chair, head, etc. Nothing that a few rounds of golf won't solve.

I will say it again like I did last night. With Obama looking so inept, their only option is some backdoor, late October surprise.
Romney will have some out of left field woman accuse him of harrassment or some Chicago trick in his near future. It is all they have left. Obama has no substance, and no record that is positive.

Obama cannot win, he has to make Romney lose.

#92 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,712 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:56 AM

Obama probably had a false sense of superiority after besting John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry over the last few weeks.

#93 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:37 AM

raise revenue with a larger tax base that actually contributes. obama speaks of simple arithmetic but can't grasp this somehow


Yes, I did like Romney's plan of raising tax revenue by not doing anything. He is going to pay for a massive tax cut by closing deductions even though that is just not enough, and he promises to cut insignificant things like PBS while practically begging to give medicare another $700 billion. Fiscal conservatism- complain about the small things while promising to do nothing about the big picture. Wait thats not how it works, oh well

I also liked Mitt running on his ability to work across the aisle while governor- well yeah I'm sure it was easy because you were a democrat back then.

#94 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:49 AM

Yes, I did like Romney's plan of raising tax revenue by not doing anything. He is going to pay for a massive tax cut by closing deductions even though that is just not enough, and he promises to cut insignificant things like PBS while practically begging to give medicare another $700 billion. Fiscal conservatism- complain about the small things while promising to do nothing about the big picture. Wait thats not how it works, oh well

I also liked Mitt running on his ability to work across the aisle while governor- well yeah I'm sure it was easy because you were a democrat back then.


it's a well-documented maxim in economics called the law of dimishing returns with respect to the tax code. that doesn't even breach the ethics of spending money confiscated at the barrel of a gun. i would rather people embrace massive cuts in governmental expenditures as history has proven that our problem has to do with spending, not revenue. let the states live or die by their own fiscal policies. if people that actually contribute don't approve of how their local taxes are being spent, they can vote with their feet. as of right now, only the wealthiest can vote with their feet if they wish to leave the US.

personally, i think ron paul would have wiped the mat with these guys last night

#95 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,752 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:04 AM

It was clear that Mitt was more polished as he has been debating much of the summer....a polished turd with little substance but polished nonetheless.

#96 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:04 AM

it's a well-documented maxim in economics called the law of dimishing returns with respect to the tax code. that doesn't even breach the ethics of spending money confiscated at the barrel of a gun. i would rather people embrace massive cuts in governmental expenditures as history has proven that our problem has to do with spending, not revenue. let the states live or die by their own fiscal policies. if people that actually contribute don't approve of how their local taxes are being spent, they can vote with their feet. as of right now, only the wealthiest can vote with their feet if they wish to leave the US.

personally, i think ron paul would have wiped the mat with these guys last night


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

#97 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,950 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:05 AM

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...

#98 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,712 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:12 AM

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.

#99 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,624 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:20 AM

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.

#100 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

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.

#101 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:38 AM

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

#102 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:44 AM

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.

#103 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:55 AM

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.

#104 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,336 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

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).

#105 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,712 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 09:07 AM

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


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com