logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> First Presidential Debate, What impact will it have?
Who do you think won the First Debate?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 24
Guests cannot vote 
Amlord
post Oct 4 2012, 03:17 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Last night was the first of three Presidential Debates.

Mitt Romney vastly outperformed expectations while President Obama was criticized even by his most stalwart water carriers.

The consensus I got from watching the cable shows is that the pundits didn't think Obama had ever been challenged in the way that Romney did in questioning his record of achievement. This is usually why the challenger wins the first Presidential debate, so the conventional wisdom goes.

What moments from the debate were most memorable?

Will Romney see a bump?

How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?

This post has been edited by Amlord: Oct 4 2012, 09:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Dingo
post Oct 5 2012, 08:55 AM
Post #21


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



What moments from the debate were most memorable?
When Romney said he was going to defund Big Bird. It was probably the most honest thing he said all evening and went against the grain of always trying to take ie invent positions that would put him at a political advantage. As for the rest, I expected Romney to flip flop and lie constantly which he did, as usual.

Will Romney see a bump?
No doubt but I notice a lot of the media post mortems are hammering him on the mendacity coming from his "triumph."

How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?
List Romney's 10 most common lies and practice simple hard hitting rebuttals to each of them. For review he might want to check this out. What makes it more interesting to me is it comes from an unlikely source.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 5 2012, 09:22 AM
Post #22


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 5 2012, 02:28 AM) *
And of course there has been fact-checking of Romney's statements after the debate, a subject that might merit a thread all by itself, especially since members of Romney's team were "setting straight" some of the things that he said that were news to them and confused his supporters. But I'm not going to start it. And now Romney says he is going to make sure that people with pre-existing health conditions don't get turned down for health insurance?! Uh-huh.

There is one very good thing for Democrats that came out of this. I am certain that it has shaken some out of their sense of complacency. Perhaps they have stopped regarding this election as a done deal and will get busy making sure the President gets re-elected.


Now that I've watched some of the reactions, I am more convinced than before that President Obama handled the situation of facing yet another version of Mitt Romney superbly.

The Denver Post compared the performance to a matador and a bull, with Romney playing the part of the attacking bull. President Obama simply side-stepped the attacks, wearing down his opponent while knowing that there'd be plenty of opportunities later on to get critical about the attacks. The lies that Romney told, wrapped in the fog of qualifying afterthoughts, were so mindlessly tossed around as to come close to blithering. Why isn't this guy fighting back?

Come on, I tweaked your nose; I stomped your toes, and you just stand there as if nothing just happened. Well grasshopper, actually nothing did just happen, and that's the key to winning the long game.

Then there was the sad attempt at bullying Jim Lehrer, an act of sheer frustration.

I haven't been aware of complacency in Democrats. There's less fire in the belly, but I doubt anyone considers this a done deal until after the votes are cast.

I'm just certain that the POTUS will get a second term. It doesn't mean I won't vote.

The grandkid is now old enough to vote. She is officially a Ponca Tribe member. She's registering this week, and I don't think she's a Romney woman.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 5 2012, 01:15 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



What moments from the debate were most memorable?

I was having dinner with friends....they recorded the debate but we were occupied and I only caught the first introduction part and haven't watched the rest.

Will Romney see a bump?

I'm sure he will. Not only due to 'winning' the debate, but also due to the perception that he won the debate. People like to feel they voted for a winner. It's why polls prior to elections can influence elections.

How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?

Prepare I guess? As I mentioned, I haven't watched it. I did speak with a friend who has watched every debate since the 1970s, and he said that in his estimation it was the most one-sided he has ever seen. Perhaps Obama actually doesn't want to win? Seriously. I saw that during Bush senior's debate...I still remember the sinking feeling I had in my stomach when he looked at his watch (I was the more emotionally invested in that election than I have ever been, so young and naive). At the time I knew he wasn't going to win, because he really didn't want to win. I don't know...can't speak as to Obama's thoughts. I do know whoever wins, it's going to be a bumpy ride. No internet-fueled capital gains bonanza with newly rich dot coms to boost the economy this time.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 5 2012, 01:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Oct 5 2012, 06:35 PM
Post #24


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 4 2012, 05:17 PM) *
Last night was the first of three Presidential Debates.

Mitt Romney vastly outperformed expectations while President Obama was criticized even by his most stalwart water carriers.

The consensus I got from watching the cable shows is that the pundits didn't think Obama had ever been challenged in the way that Romney did in questioning his record of achievement. This is usually why the challenger wins the first Presidential debate, so the conventional wisdom goes.

What moments from the debate were most memorable?
1. When Romney said: “You said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for twenty-five years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.”
2. When all the mainstream media eagerly wrote their next storyline:
The somewhat-comeback of Romney and the fictionally arrogant Obama. The storyline of the liberal-elitist is amazingly live and kicking. Liberals are supposedly elitists because they did NOT drop out of high school. From pinheads to Karl Rove's "he's the guy in the country club", this succesful attempt of the uber billionaires to paint themselves as "one of the guys" while people who think, are "the other" has GOT to be one the most successful distortions since Goebbels began pronouncing the word "ausradieren"

Long story short: all media were fervently wishing for a "romney comeback" storyline, cos that sells more ads.

QUOTE
Will Romney see a bump?

Only if he gets hit on the head by Big Bird! PBS support is 0.012 per cent of the federal budget .... I mean, talk about penny-somewhat-not-stupid and pound-completely-moronic ....
QUOTE
How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?

He has to show up.


It's really, really doubtful that Romneys authoritarian, agressive, semi-dictatorial (poor Jim!) performance will really make hundreds of thousands of swing staters go:
"Ooooh, he's lying so eloquently now , let's vote Romney!"

But if it does, America fully deserves the return to Bush era policies it's gonna get.

Boy, that jobs report knocked all the air out of Romney's 'win'.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 5 2012, 09:33 PM
Post #25


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2012, 05:22 AM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 5 2012, 02:28 AM) *
And of course there has been fact-checking of Romney's statements after the debate, a subject that might merit a thread all by itself, especially since members of Romney's team were "setting straight" some of the things that he said that were news to them and confused his supporters. But I'm not going to start it. And now Romney says he is going to make sure that people with pre-existing health conditions don't get turned down for health insurance?! Uh-huh.

There is one very good thing for Democrats that came out of this. I am certain that it has shaken some out of their sense of complacency. Perhaps they have stopped regarding this election as a done deal and will get busy making sure the President gets re-elected.


Now that I've watched some of the reactions, I am more convinced than before that President Obama handled the situation of facing yet another version of Mitt Romney superbly.

The Denver Post compared the performance to a matador and a bull, with Romney playing the part of the attacking bull. President Obama simply side-stepped the attacks, wearing down his opponent while knowing that there'd be plenty of opportunities later on to get critical about the attacks. The lies that Romney told, wrapped in the fog of qualifying afterthoughts, were so mindlessly tossed around as to come close to blithering. Why isn't this guy fighting back?

Come on, I tweaked your nose; I stomped your toes, and you just stand there as if nothing just happened. Well grasshopper, actually nothing did just happen, and that's the key to winning the long game.

Then there was the sad attempt at bullying Jim Lehrer, an act of sheer frustration.

I haven't been aware of complacency in Democrats. There's less fire in the belly, but I doubt anyone considers this a done deal until after the votes are cast.

I'm just certain that the POTUS will get a second term. It doesn't mean I won't vote.

The grandkid is now old enough to vote. She is officially a Ponca Tribe member. She's registering this week, and I don't think she's a Romney woman.

Okay, I'm going to try this again (computer problems!)...

I am not personally complacent about the election, either. Some Democrats might have figured that after months of missteps by the Republican challenger that our candidate would just naturally stand head and shoulders above him and be a shoe-in for re-election. I hope they realize that there are some folks in this country who place more credence in one or two public debates than "many moons" of stump speeches and primaries. I know that many of these same people are less prone to know the issues as well as say, members of this forum. They saw "Mr. GQ" Romney smiling as he dominated the argument (and the moderator) and might NOT be aware that he has once again contradicted himself on just where he stands on the issues. For many of these prospective voters, it might not be their fault that they aren't very well informed about the candidates and their positions--they might be working 60-hour weeks. They vote with their gut, and if they feel that the hardships they have experienced are the fault of one man in the top leadership position, they will vote for the challenger.

That is why Obama needs people to vote for him who realize that electing a pig in a poke ("I can't give you details, but trust me") doesn't translate to better economic conditions in the country. These people must either vote absentee or show up at the polls in appreciable numbers.

The voters who make choices based on the debates are somewhat like people who go to fortune tellers. The fortune teller will make mistakes (e.g., mentioning brothers or sisters that the seeker does not have), but the customers are willing to overlook them if they end up hearing what they want to hear. Having something akin to chameleon-like powers to change his policy stances to suit his audiences, Romney need only say the "right thing" once significantly for them. Integrity when it comes to sticking to a position does not seem to matter to some. They want Obama out, period. It doesn't matter who it is who takes his place; "Not-Obama" is apparently good enough for them.

For the next debate, Obama needs to ingest a little more caffeine than what his opponent allegedly didn't ingest. w00t.gif But whichever Willard "Mitt" Romney shows up for the next debate, I guarantee that the President will be better prepared to debate him.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 5 2012, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2012, 08:56 AM
Post #26


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 4 2012, 08:51 AM) *
How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?
He needs to be better prepared. His biggest problem though is that he is faced with the defending positions like “taxing the rich will go a long way to solving our problems”, a position that has no real mathematical reality and that he was against 2 years ago. And Romney pointed this out although I was disappointed Romney did not nail him on the specifics when he had the nerve to say Romney had trouble with the “mathematics”…

5 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years which he has no clue how to pay for or if he does he isn't inclined to share it. I'd call that "trouble with the “mathematics”.

I'd like somebody to help me. Here is a transcript of the debate. Will someone show me one point that Romney won on the merits?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Oct 6 2012, 11:07 AM
Post #27


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,197
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 5 2012, 05:33 PM) *
Okay, I'm going to try this again (computer problems!)...

Understatement!

I just swapped out a cable from PE's computer to the router, and I hope that will help her connectivity in the short run. I ordered a pair of Cat6 cables online to see if we can upgrade the reliability of our Internet connections.

My thanks to the MOD who took the time to delete a couple of posts that we had to leave unedited because we were late for a meeting!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 6 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #28


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 04:56 AM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 4 2012, 08:51 AM) *
How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?
He needs to be better prepared. His biggest problem though is that he is faced with the defending positions like “taxing the rich will go a long way to solving our problems”, a position that has no real mathematical reality and that he was against 2 years ago. And Romney pointed this out although I was disappointed Romney did not nail him on the specifics when he had the nerve to say Romney had trouble with the “mathematics”…

5 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years which he has no clue how to pay for or if he does he isn't inclined to share it. I'd call that "trouble with the “mathematics”.

I'd like somebody to help me. Here is a transcript of the debate. Will someone show me one point that Romney won on the merits?

Right, these aren't actual debates but extended campaign ads. Nobody is keeping score on who wins, point-by-point, as would happen in a real competitive debate.

Winning is a completely arbitrary judgement based on cosmetics and behavior. Romney looked better than Obama and seemed to be on some kind of stimulant, which for the American eye, comes off as being productive. That's why there are coffee machines in the office and not beer kegs.

The really funny touch that I would have expected in a Family Guy episode was the red and blue ties. I'm expecting some sort of funny take coming from those people, Stewie debating Brian maybe.

PE, I understand your take on Democrats perhaps not voting this go-round due to being overconfident. The debate loss might have lit fires under some people, I don't know. The only thing I've been hearing around town is that Romney has no clue how we live. My take is that he's more like Stevenson running against Ike than, say, Reagan running against Carter. I suspect it'll come down to whether we need a CEO or a President.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2012, 02:18 PM
Post #29


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 04:56 AM) *
...
5 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years which he has no clue how to pay for or if he does he isn't inclined to share it. I'd call that "trouble with the “mathematics”.

I'd like somebody to help me. Here is a transcript of the debate. Will someone show me one point that Romney won on the merits?

Here's one:
QUOTE
...
ROMNEY: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it. But that -- that is not the case. All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.
...

Even Stephanie Cutter, Obama's spokeswoman, was forced to concede that the "$5 trillion tax cut" claim is bogus:
QUOTE
...
BURNETT: Stephanie, let me ask you about that. Because here at CNN, we fact checked that, that $5 trillion in tax cuts and we’ve come and said that’s not true. Mitt Romney has not promised that. because he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions. So his tax cut wouldn’t be anywhere near that size.
...
CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.
...
Cutter then pivots to arguing that there won’t be enough loopholes or deductions to remove from high-income earners to prevent affecting middle-income earners. That’s debatable, as both Burnett and Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen note.
...
Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can’t actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not ‘on the table’, and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare’s tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare’s spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.

As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney’s plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under “plausible” growth assumptions.*
...
The whopping growth rate required to make the math work? 2.29 percent, according to Rosen, which in a world before Obama seemed plenty plausible.
...

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/05/cutt...ys-lying-about/

Romney won that point both on substance and style (love the "Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it." line. Heh.).

BTW, that was during the first 5 minutes of the debate. And it pretty much kept getting worse for Obama from there. That's how, by the end, this turned out to be the most lopsided debate since CNN started doing post-debate polling in 1984.



This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 6 2012, 02:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2012, 04:26 PM
Post #30


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 6 2012, 04:13 AM) *
Romney looked better than Obama and seemed to be on some kind of stimulant, which for the American eye, comes off as being productive.

Yeah, the Democrats should be running Matt Damon on coke. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 6 2012, 04:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 6 2012, 05:48 PM
Post #31


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



I don't have specifics because I am not Romney, but I do see the theory. First, lowering the deductions increases the amount of income that is taxed and in theory should increase tax revenue. Second, lowering rates decreases the responsibility of the business owner and frees up revenue for the business to invest into the business hopefully through more employees. I have long said that just giving a business owner more money isn't incentive enough to add to the employment roles and I still stand by that premise. The difference here is that by lowering the rates, that increases consumer income and in turn consumer spending power; again in theory. By giving the consumer more money on their paycheck, they should be able to spend more and increase demand and in turn give employers reason to hire more. This is where the bulk of the increased tax revenue comes into play. If we can increase employment, we add income tax payers and increase the amount of taxes collected as a whole. Between the additional tax payers and the increase on the amount of income that is taxable, tax revenue theoretically will increase.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2012, 05:55 PM
Post #32


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 6 2012, 10:48 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



I don't have specifics because I am not Romney, but I do see the theory.

You can't run a country on theories. Romney needs to put forth specific proposals that add up. He hasn't done that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 6 2012, 06:13 PM
Post #33


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Obama did not have a good night, but he didn't do as badly as I'd heard from everyone. Romney did a great job of dominating the debate (no, I don't mean in terms of time, but he was very much in control - whereas, Obama was on the defensive.) If he can keep that up, he just might be able to hoodwink more folks into buying what he's selling. Obama needs to be prepared with Romney's previous statements so that he can call him out on the flip flops and contradictions, he needs to attack the specifics (or lack thereof) of Romney's plan. He needs to point up the contradictions between Romney and Ryan.

Obama didn't question Romney's statements... the employer who has 4 employees... was he really in the top 3% of employers that he was referring to?

He allowed Romney to call him out for partisanship when it came to healthcare and condemn him for not being partisan - and running with it - when it came to Simpson Bowles.

If Obama wants to win, he has to go on the offensive and really challenge Romney... he didn't do that in this debate.

And, seriously, Obama needs to never, ever, say... 'then Romney is the candidate for you.' That is the worst possible thing to say. Best to say, "He says he can do this... ask yourself if he actually can, because what he's proposing is extremely unlikely, if not impossible to achieve, and he won't give any specifics on how he's going to actually do it."

Yes, Romney's theory on tax/revenue may be sound, but you still have to apply that theory to the situation as it stands and if there's not enough money to be gained by closing loopholes and limiting deductions, the theory won't work in the real world.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 6 2012, 06:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 6 2012, 06:59 PM
Post #34


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 12:55 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 6 2012, 10:48 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



I don't have specifics because I am not Romney, but I do see the theory.

You can't run a country on theories. Romney needs to put forth specific proposals that add up. He hasn't done that.

Actually, economics is nothing more than theory. Besides, I have yet to see in any election anyone provide a plan with the level of specifics you are demanding. I don't even know why I am debating with you since regardless of what Romney publishes, you would continue to move the goal posts. In fact, I don't know why I debate with you at all in any thread, you would think I learned my lesson in the concealed weapons thread that you couldn't provide anything of substance. Shame on me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2012, 07:48 PM
Post #35


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 6 2012, 11:59 AM) *
I don't know why I debate with you at all in any thread

Take it up with your psychiatrist. tongue.gif

QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 11:13 AM) *
Obama did not have a good night, but he didn't do as badly as I'd heard from everyone. Romney did a great job of dominating the debate (no, I don't mean in terms of time, but he was very much in control - whereas, Obama was on the defensive.) If he can keep that up, he just might be able to hoodwink more folks into buying what he's selling.


I guess a real question to me is why should the president have to be on his A game to win against a demonstrable chronic flip flopper and pathological liar? If we had a public with minimal integrity and critical thinking skills Obama should be able to win the debate just by showing up. As it is the president came out ahead on the facts. It was falling off a log obvious. Does it come down to candidates doing well choreographed alpha male posturings to win over an audience? Apparently in this debate it did and some philosophical no facts bloviating to keep ideologues like scubatim happy. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 6 2012, 08:03 PM
Post #36


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 03:48 PM) *
I guess a real question to me is why should the president have to be on his A game to win against a demonstrable chronic flip flopper and pathological liar? If we had a public with minimal integrity and critical thinking skills Obama should be able to win the debate just by showing up. As it is the president came out ahead on the facts. It was falling off a log obvious. Does it come down to candidates doing well choreographed alpha male posturings to win over an audience? Apparently in this debate it did and some philosophical no facts bloviating to keep ideologues like scubatim happy. cool.gif


In an election you must always be on your A game. Obama did not hold Romney's feet to the fire. If he'd been stronger, he could have better highlighted Romney's failings. He didn't. He didn't point out that Medicare fund would be exhausted in a little over 3 years if he didn't cut something there and that Republicans also wanted to make those cuts, thereby illustrating how Romney's approach is unworkable and foolhardy and that even people in his party (including his running mate) think it's necessary. He didn't point out that Romney's plan to cut incentives in clean energy would cost jobs. He didn't call Romney out on the falsehood regarding how much has been spent fostering clean energy or the benefits that have come of it. He allowed Romney to get away with the Solyndra meme despite the fact that the loss there was only 1.4% of the money invested by the government in clean energy companies - a better record than most venture capitalists expect. He basically allowed Romney to lie and run all over him. That's not a good strategy.

QUOTE(scubatim)
Besides, I have yet to see in any election anyone provide a plan with the level of specifics you are demanding.
But when the plan seems to defy practical reasoning entirely, I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask for specifics. At the moment, his plan is alchemy and the numbers don't come close to working. Romney should definitely explain how he can make up for the difference between the total amount he could get from closing loopholes/limiting deductions and cutting taxes... it just doesn't add up. It's legitimate to call him out on that.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 6 2012, 08:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2012, 08:26 PM
Post #37


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 04:03 PM) *
...
... At the moment, his plan is alchemy and the numbers don't come close to working. Romney should definitely explain how he can make up for the difference between the total amount he could get from closing loopholes/limiting deductions and cutting taxes... it just doesn't add up. ...

Sure it does. Even the Tax Policy Center, when pressed, admits as much:
QUOTE
...
TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.
...
That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.
...
William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and one of the authors of the study on Romney's tax plan, told me this morning that under these two assumptions Romney's tax plan would maintain revenue neutrality without raising middle class taxes. "Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral," Gale wrote in an email, "but remember the tax expenditures are eliminated from the top down and that is not administratively feasible. So you also have to assume tax expenditures are eliminated in an infeasible manner to avoid the tax increase on households with income below $200,000."

So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult. Whether or not eliminating tax expenditures from the top down is "administratively feasible" is a matter of opinion--not a matter of math.
...

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-....html?nopager=1

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 6 2012, 08:38 PM
Post #38


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 01:03 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 03:48 PM) *
I guess a real question to me is why should the president have to be on his A game to win against a demonstrable chronic flip flopper and pathological liar? If we had a public with minimal integrity and critical thinking skills Obama should be able to win the debate just by showing up. As it is the president came out ahead on the facts. It was falling off a log obvious. Does it come down to candidates doing well choreographed alpha male posturings to win over an audience? Apparently in this debate it did and some philosophical no facts bloviating to keep ideologues like scubatim happy. cool.gif


In an election you must always be on your A game. Obama did not hold Romney's feet to the fire. If he'd been stronger, he could have better highlighted Romney's failings. He didn't. He didn't point out that Medicare fund would be exhausted in a little over 3 years if he didn't cut something there and that Republicans also wanted to make those cuts, thereby illustrating how Romney's approach is unworkable and foolhardy and that even people in his party (including his running mate) think it's necessary. He didn't point out that Romney's plan to cut incentives in clean energy would cost jobs. He didn't call Romney out on the falsehood regarding how much has been spent fostering clean energy or the benefits that have come of it. He allowed Romney to get away with the Solyndra meme despite the fact that the loss there was only 1.4% of the money invested by the government in clean energy companies - a better record than most venture capitalists expect. He basically allowed Romney to lie and run all over him. That's not a good strategy.


Well the president was operating under time constraints, the questions of the moderator and a focus on laying out his own plans rather than constantly playing cop to Romney. You can only do so much and the news media had uncovered much of Romney's lies if folks were at all interested. That said, sure he could have done better. Still it irritates me when "The People" and their level of discernment are taken out of the equation. Blaming the president for failings in debate that it is easy for us to enumerate at our leisure seems a bit unfair. Are the viewers not expected to bring anything to the table? If not then it's just the best demagogic performance wins and we end up with a Mitt Orwell Romney.

QUOTE
So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult.

What's Romney's tax plan?

This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 6 2012, 08:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2012, 09:22 PM
Post #39


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Here's a pretty thorough evaluation of Obama's and Romney's claims and counter-claims during the debate, one that also exposes the "Obama did poorly because he just couldn't keep up with all of Romney's lies" meme as the pathetically whiny nonsense that it is:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/r...lity-check.html

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 6 2012, 09:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 6 2012, 10:05 PM
Post #40


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 6 2012, 04:26 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 04:03 PM) *
...
... At the moment, his plan is alchemy and the numbers don't come close to working. Romney should definitely explain how he can make up for the difference between the total amount he could get from closing loopholes/limiting deductions and cutting taxes... it just doesn't add up. ...

Sure it does. Even the Tax Policy Center, when pressed, admits as much:
QUOTE
...
TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.
...
That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.
...
William G. Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and one of the authors of the study on Romney's tax plan, told me this morning that under these two assumptions Romney's tax plan would maintain revenue neutrality without raising middle class taxes. "Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral," Gale wrote in an email, "but remember the tax expenditures are eliminated from the top down and that is not administratively feasible. So you also have to assume tax expenditures are eliminated in an infeasible manner to avoid the tax increase on households with income below $200,000."

So what the Tax Policy Center is really saying is not that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible, but that it's difficult. Whether or not eliminating tax expenditures from the top down is "administratively feasible" is a matter of opinion--not a matter of math.
...

Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-....html?nopager=1


Congress's rules don't allow for the assumptions Romney wants to make about economic growth - as is stated in the Bloomberg link you provided. Congress has to pass the laws to put the plan to work and, under the rules of Congress, his plan doesn't add up. If Congress can't administratively do what Romney wants, then it is administratively infeasible - a fact and not merely an opinion. And if they can't make those assumptions and have to work with numbers that don't make those assumptions, then it is mathematically impossible.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 6 2012, 10:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 15th, 2018 - 10:56 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.