1st Presidential Debate Denver

Amerika

I thought it was a great debate. A good mixture of general objectives, specifics, and differences in ideologies. The people got to see each candidate unfiltered and sometimes taken off script. Romney definitely looked more confident, more fluent, more knowledgeable, more engaged… more presidential. Obama reminded me of one of my professors having to lecture us after a class test were the majority of students didn’t do well… Why Don’t You People Get This! Obama was in a tough spot going in though, with having to defend a bunch of policies and decisions that have failed. Personally I think this debate swung a lot of those "undecideds" into Romney’s corner.

As for the future debates, I predict Ryan winning the VP debate, Romney winning the Town Hall style debate, and a tie on the Foreign Policy debate.

(Perhaps Bill Clinton could fill in for Obama at the next debate )

Einhard

I think some people are overreacting on this. Obama had a poor debate, and Romney had a good one. Romney will be much happier with proceedings than the president and he deserves to be, but there was no knock out blow from either side. There was nothing in it, that I could see anyway, that could prove decisive in the polls. I imagine that undecided voters were impressed with Romney, and might be more inclined to give him their vote, but that's a long way from actually pulling the lever in his favour, and the election is still almost a month away.

It will be interesting to see how the polls reflect the debate- if Romney makes significant gains in the likes of Colorado, Ohio, and Florida, then it's a race again. However, if he fails to make progress, then he's in very serious trouble.

Something that struck me about the debate was that Romney might have made a good president. He was calm, collected and composed, and in command of the facts. However, he has sacrificed so many of his principles and ran so far to the right on so many issues, and that, in my eyes, has hugely affected his credentials fot rhe post.

Overheal

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

And didn't Romney pay some low effective tax last year, like 14%? I thought Obama would be all over that one.

And Romney didn't go after Obama's Birth Certificate, either.

You're missing the point of the debate.

Mjollnir

The pre-existing conditions flat-out lie is just one of more than a few lies that the Obama campaign can use to it's benefit.

Siure, Obama did not have a strong night. What's important, however, is that he didn't give the Romney people one thing to use in an ad and, by being such a transparently dishonest debater, Romney gave Obama fodder for a LOT of ads until the election.

If the Obama people are smart, they'll have ads out immediately showing how Romney will lie about anything. Just contrast his aggressive statements tonight with everything he's already said.

If they do that, the perception of the debate becomes more about Romney the Liar--solidifying the image he already had.

But they're going to have to get on it, toot sweet.

Brian?

Atlantis50 wrote: »

joseph brand wrote: »

Expectations were high for Obama, but low for Romney.

I reckon there were points where Obama was puzzled, listening to Romney deny policy proposals he made during his campaign. It must have been like debating a stranger (not Romney).

Also, I, like many others, am perplexed as to why Obama didn't administer any killer blows. There's no reason for him to be soft on his opponent, he's not 'afraid' of him, so my only guess is that he's up to something.

Romney looked the more dishevelled, red-faced, irritated and arrogant as the debate went on. He wasn't exactly 'bullying' Obama, but he did make The President look like a calm, reasonable pacifist.

I thought that I could see real hatred and contempt in Romney's eyes, for Obama.

Judging by the polls, even the Fox 'news' poll, Obama's healthy lead meant that Romney had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. He tried to rile up The President but failed, because Obama kept his eyes on the camera, the moderator and his notes. We all know that it's bad to make eye contact his crazy people.

Based on last nights debate, there won't be any shortage of viewers for the next one/ two. The media are loving this.

This is by far the worst analysis of the debate I've seen so far.

Why? Counter points are the norm when disagreeing with a post.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sure you're aware that repeating a claim multiple times doesn't make it true.
[/quote]

How witty. It's the accuracy of the statement that makes it true not the repetition.

You are blinded by your love of supply side economics, it puts you cosily in bed with Romney. Sullivan is blinded by disappointment and emotion.

Conveniently, everybody seems to be blinded by something, except for you yourself.

I actually find it most inconvenient. Extreme reactions to relatively minor set backs annoy me. If Romney supporters had reacted in the same way after a poor performance I'd have reacted in a similar, but more joyful way.

You don't know my politics very well if you think that I'm "cosily in bed with Romney." I've already stated on this thread and elsewhere that I support Gary Johnson for president.

I clarified this earlier, but will do so again. This debate was largely on economics. Yourself, other libertarians and Romney have a great deal in common on economics. Do you deny that?

Fr Tod Umptious

briankeating wrote: »

Face value is all he has. Behind that is an policy void.

southsiderosie wrote: »

When has that ever stopped American voters?

briankeating wrote: »

Unfortunately never.

A bit like the election of Obama in 2008 then

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Face value is all he has. Behind that is an policy void.

southsiderosie wrote: »

When has that ever stopped American voters?

briankeating wrote: »

Unfortunately never.

A bit like the election of Obama in 2008 then

Let's not forget, if Obama hadn't won we'd be a slip in the shower away from President Palin.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Let's not forget, if Obama hadn't won we'd be a slip in the shower away from President Palin.

Yeah, but he won by 8%, quite a margin by US standards.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL! Yet more frothy hyperbole? If flat-out lying about his own positions is 'confident and presidential', then we must have different definitions of the words.

Memnoch

As much as I hate to say it, the key word in Permabear's post is 'appeared.' And in that, his assessment is correct.

Romney APPEARED to have a better handle and a solid plan. He kept saying 'jobs, jobs, jobs.' Whether when promoting his own plan or attacking Obama's policies. It's what the American public wanted to here.

I think the credit should go to the campaign team that prepared him so well. All that hard work he put in during prep paid off, he was able to keep an absolute straight face while lying through his teeth.

But in the end, it is the appearance that counts because there are more than enough people in the electorate who are not as informed as they should/could be about what Romney has said these past few months.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This is the first and last time I am going to say this on this thread, because it is becoming endemic across this forum: the personal attacks and sniping need to stop. NOW.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

William Galston of The Huffington Post made a great point today:

In elections involving sitting presidents, two questions are key: First, is a majority of the electorate willing to consider replacing the incumbent? If the answer is no (as it was in 1984, for example), there is nothing much that the challenger can do. But if the answer is yes, then the second question becomes decisive: does the challenger represent an acceptable alternative?

From the close polling numbers, the American people apparently are willing to consider replacing the current president. And Romney looked mighty capable and presidential in the debate last night. A doubly whammy to the Obama reelection chances.


- - - - -

And in lighter news as a result:

JetBlue Airways' new "Election Protection" promotion allows voters the chance to win a free round-trip ticket to one of the airline's 21 international destinations if the election doesn't go their way. Contestants first must preregister at jetblue.com/electionprotection. After the Nov. 6 results are in, the airline will give away 1,006 roundtrip certificates — that's 2012 seats — to participants whose candidate lost.

We've all heard it said before: if my candidate does not win, I'm leaving the country," said Marty St. George, senior vice president of marketing and commercial strategy for JetBlue. "Fun is one of our five founding values, and in this spirit, we decided to give people a chance to recover from the political noise and follow through on their claim to skip town if their candidate comes up short."

After the display last night, I can see JstBlue’s website crashing today from the onslaught of Democrat signups.

Overheal

Mjollnir wrote: »

LOL! Yet more frothy hyperbole? If flat-out lying about his own positions is 'confident and presidential', then we must have different definitions of the words.

Which of his positions was he flat out lying about? I know he's very dry on specifics, but what did he actually get a pants on fire rating for? I'm curious.

ceannbui

First of all, didn't he lie about this tax policy and his tax-cut plans? (which would cut $4 trillion in taxes for upper-income millionaires and billionaires). Romney has run on this tax policy for more than a year.

He has also run on the his plan to voucherize Medicare. he denied that.

Romney lied about his healthcare plan, saying tonight that he had a plan to cover people with pre-existing conditions, even though he had promised to repeal Obamacare on day one.

Conas

20Cent wrote: »

One thing Obama is famous for is stepping back and letting his opponent talk themselves into a corner. The exact same things were said in 2008 about his cool demeanor. Romney has so many conflicting policies which change sometimes by the day which makes great fodder for tv ads.
He could have taken a leaf from Ted Kennedy's book though, there is a video on youtube of Kennedy debating Romney. Kennedy asked about specifics of Romneys healthcare plan, Romney replied that his people would provide them to him, Kennedy turns to the camera and says its not me you need to tell its the American public. Would have been good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmF3PkyBAYI[/QUOTE]7

Ron Paul would have dismantled both these guys last night. They both lie through their teeth, and quiet frankly anyone who believes either of their poilicies clearly have learned nothing over the last 12 years. The sad reality is people are so clueless about politics, that some people should just stick to following something they actually know. Ron Paul was so damn good, that it's a tragedy he wasn't their last night. He humiliated Romney and made him look so silly in the Republican debates, I couldnt believe that Ron Paul didnt get the Republican nomination. I wish we had him here in Ireland, what a waste of such a talented and smart politician. The best in the world.

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

Which of his positions was he flat out lying about? I know he's very dry on specifics, but what did he actually get a pants on fire rating for? I'm curious.

Leaving aside his nonsense about taxes not going up on the middle class, which the plan of his VP Ryan clearly calls for, his nonsense about medical insurance.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php?ref=fpb

I get the impression that, Obama being a far, far more capable politician than Romney, this was sort of a rope-a-dope, letting Mitt just lie flat out for most of the night and then in the next two debates bringing those lies back out with Mitt squarely in his sights.

Carcharodon

I think it is clear that Romney "won" the debate, not by out debating Obama on the issues but he silenced the media and his critics about him being not able for this stage.
He was confident and presidencial like in his appearance and delivery.
The fact that he is still contradicting himself and flip floppin away is not most people will see, they will see the image, and image above substance is what really matters in these races.

Denerick

To be honest, I haven't even watched the debate in full. Just a rundown of the highlights. But I'm willing to take Memnochs interpretation as gospel, cos, you know, he's probably right (I'm genuinely not being sarcastic, thats the vibe I'm getting from the mostly leftish sources I've read about the fallout from the debates)

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

To be honest, I haven't even watched the debate in full. Just a rundown of the highlights. But I'm willing to take Memnochs interpretation as gospel, cos, you know, he's probably right (I'm genuinely not being sarcastic, thats the vibe I'm getting from the mostly leftish sources I've read about the fallout from the debates)

He's pretty much bang on.

BobbyPropane

Problem I have with Romney is that he is from the same branch as Bush. We don't want a repeat of Fear and manipulation again do we....

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My last word on this entire hooha, I have gotten too worked up about this non event for my own good: Romney did indeed appear presidential and confident, but then if I dressed my sister in mens clothes and had her wear a fake beard she would appear to be my brother. She lacks the necessary equipment though.

Romney lacks the necessary plans, to labour my poor metaphor. If people are going to vote on appearances then Romney is on a winner. They won't though. Debates never change the direction of elections. Historically, the front runner before the debates wins. So calm is needed on all sides.

Mr.Micro

Mjollnir wrote: »

I get the impression that, Obama being a far, far more capable politician than Romney, this was sort of a rope-a-dope, letting Mitt just lie flat out for most of the night and then in the next two debates bringing those lies back out with Mitt squarely in his sights.

Dunno about that. I think Obama and the Democrats underestimated the other Romney, the one in the debate, the actor and performer. To my mind Obama should have put him to bed in the debate and not have allowed him to dominate. Surely people can see that Romney performs to whatever audience he addresses and says whatever. Obama needs to dominate the next debate and show Romney up for the chameleon he is.

conrow

Gotta love the onion...

Romney Dominated Debate, Say Pundits Trying To Figure Out GOP Candidate's Policies
DENVER—Following Wednesday's presidential debate, Mitt Romney’s performance was hailed as “dominant” and “potentially game-changing” by a near unanimous consensus of political commentators who were still trying to figure out where exactly the Republican nominee stood on the issues and what specific policies, if any, he espoused. “Mitt Romney was very strong up there, and there’s no doubt he made an effective, compelling case to the nation’s undecided voters,” said NBC News correspondent Chuck Todd, who was, if anything, more at a loss as to what health care, job creation, tax policy, education, deficit reduction, and financial regulation would look like under a Romney presidency after the debate than he was before it began. “Romney came across as very presidential tonight. If he can ride this momentum for the rest of the campaign, he has a real shot at taking the White House.” Analysing President Obama’s performance, pundits agreed that the man who articulated a sober plan of measured steps and shared sacrifice to ensure the nation’s future prosperity had a “tough road” ahead of him if he hoped to match Romney in the next debate

Was disappointed with Obama last night in fairness. He was put on the back foot and didn't look comfortable. I'd like to see the candidates put more on the spot for the next debate so they can actually answer questions about their policies that are still lingering.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Look Permabear you're laying this on a bit thick. Obama had a bad night, but Romney seemed to speak in vague generalities without really talking about anything specific. In the last ten years he has abandoned most of his political 'philosophy' only to re-embrace it. Romney is not a good politician, and quite frankly, not a good person. He is easily the most wretched American to seek the office since... well... I don't know. Nixon maybe.

As for hiding from press conferences and the like, all I can say is LOL. Romney has basically ran a campaign where he has almost entirely ignored the media. Or do you forget his little foreign policy/gaffe tour of the UK, Poland and Israel?

In general terms I would agree with you about the awfulness of modern debates, Dan Carlin did a good podcast on it lately.

joseph brand

Obama: 'When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney'

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139998/-Obama-When-I-got-on-the-stage-I-met-this-very-spirited-fellow-who-claimed-to-be-Mitt-Romney

joseph brand

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths

Mitt and his myths.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=wp

What seemed like a win for Romney, on the night, is quickly being shown as a tangled web of deceit. Obama gave us quite a scare, but it turns out, Romney buried himself under a mountain of lies. He's good with a shovel.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dirk Gently

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5vOMIN673A

Mjollnir

joseph brand wrote: »

Mitt and his myths.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=wp

What seemed like a win for Romney, on the night, is quickly being shown as a tangled web of deceit. Obama gave us quite a scare, but it turns out, Romney buried himself under a mountain of lies. He's good with a shovel.

Sorry, didn't see you'd posted that. Ditching mine.

nagilum2

joseph brand wrote: »

Mitt and his myths.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=wp

What seemed like a win for Romney, on the night, is quickly being shown as a tangled web of deceit. Obama gave us quite a scare, but it turns out, Romney buried himself under a mountain of lies. He's good with a shovel.

Mjollnir wrote: »

For those who'd like and actual accounting: 27 lies in 38 minutes.

Boom.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

Why is there such a tendency on this board to only post the fact check from highly biased sources? Why not show something that at least pretends to be legitimate? http://www.politifact.com/

Both candidates had more than their share lies and exaggerations. But claiming a candidate lost the debate because in hindsight the other guy told lies is just rationalizing a shoddy performance. Lies and exaggerations are part of the game. It's like claiming a guy shouldn't have won the poker tournament because he bluffed his way through and didn't get called out on it. Debates aren't about the truth. They're about appearing knowledgeable and competent, telling people what they want to hear, avoiding or parrying questions you don't want to answer and making your opponent address questions they don't want to answer, and finally getting some small sliver of the electorate that is actually independent to believe you. And it's up to the opponents to call each other out over their exaggerations and lies during the debates. The big story of the night was that for whatever reason, Obama wouldn't/couldn't engage and rebut Romney effectively.

Anyway, politicians lie. They all do. Politicians that win elections often do so by being the one that can most effectively get away with lying to the people. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised (much less offended) that either of them wasn't completely factual.

And hey, look at Bill Clinton - maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe the best, most convincing liars are actually the best politicians?

Manic Moran

Agreed with Nagilum. If the other guy is not being entirely accurate, either it's your own bloody fault for not knowing any better and calling him on it, or it's not particularly important enough to be worried about if it's accurate or not.

I missed the debate, I caught the last fifteen minutes when sitting on a United flight. So, the first place I went to this morning was the factcheck sites, since I figure it's the most interesting part of the debate (not necessarily most important, but interesting). Actually, my first one of those was Politifact. The impression I got was that neither was particularly more or less accurate than the other, and the amount of untruths vs truths seemed reasonably small considering how long they were yakking about stuff.

As I read over this thread, I note this humorous sequence:

Here’s one thing I can’t figure out… who keeps letting people like Jim Lehrer, a liberal public-broadcasting anchor, moderate these presidential debates?

Getting your excuses in for a poor Romney performance already?

to

Romney just stole Obama's slot there completely bulldozed over him.. Obama was smiling at the moderator in desperation appealing at him to put a leash on Romney

BS' assessment of the moderator:

Jim Lehrer was a poor moderator for the 1st presidential debate. He lost control many times, was ignored, did not keep the segments within the time constraints, and allowed the debaters to frequently go off-topic.

This may be true, and assuming it's a statement of incopetence instead of bias, but as Hazys points out:

Obama wake the fcuk up, the moderator isnt going to save you

This works both ways.

Romney evidently better understood the environment he was working in, and seized this to his advantage. I would expect a President to do this routinely, particularly on the international stage. To that extent, I might suggest that these debates do actually test a significant presidential skill.

NTM

vetinari

As a debate, Romney certainly won it. I definitely expected more fight from Obama.
In saying that, like the onion article, a large aide to Romney was his vagueness, half truths and lies.
I am always amazed at the inability of the Democrats to fully call out nonsense.

The most galling example in the debate was the question over what deductions Romney would get rid of to make up 5 trillion dollars. That's huge. Over here in the states, taxes are less about the rates and largely about the deductions. Taking away the mortgage interest deduction would raise the average person's tax bill by thousands. It's all about deductions. It'd be fine to pay 40% tax rate on 40,000 dollars of taxable income versus 25% on 80,000 dollars.

That a candidate for President can get this far in the race without divulging what he's going to is mind boggling.
This isn't the normal exaggerations that every politician does. He's giving nothing away. The most likely thing that will happen is that he'll get into office and like Bush enact tax cuts that just add to the deficit. The media and the democrats should be pounding this point. You got to put something forward.

Btw speaking of exaggeration, Romney's remark on pre existing conditions being covered by insurance was simply immoral.
To flat out lie about a central issue that affects millions of people is pretty bad.
For those who don't know, under his approach, pre existing conditions are covered only for people who currently have employer subsidized coverage and lose their job. You can choose to keep that insurance (at the full unsubsidized rate). At least it's an option. It's also what's in place today.
For people with pre existing conditions who don't have health insurance (the entire point of Obamacare), they won't be able to get health insurance. Romney just flat out lied in saying that people with pre existing conditions will be guaranteed access to health insurance.

ceannbui

Rmoney lied about his tax plan
he lied about obama's tax plan
he lied about small businesseses and their share of the workforce
he lied about oil production in the US
he lied about how much debt Obama has created
he lied about his plan's ability to fund medicaid
he lied about obama cutting $715b dollars from medicare
he lied about his own plans for changing medicare
he lied about pre-existing conditions existing in his plan
he lied about his plans to repeal obamacare
he lied about the increased cost of obamacare
he lied about people losing insurance because of obamacare
he lied about what he would do with Dodd-Frank (banking regulation)
he lied about what was in Dodd-Frank
he lied about republicans attempting to work across the aisle in congress
he lied about obama's funding of green energy
he lied about obama being in favour of dramatic reductions in military spending (ie the sequester)

this is a summary of the link posted by mjolnir and joseh brand
the argument that everybody does it isn't an argument unless you can prove it

20Cent

When Obama was up against Hillary Clinton and then John McCain he did the same thing. Step back let them talk themselves into a corner and then attack. No surprise he is doing the same thing now. I too was disappointed he wasn't tougher against Romney this time but he's given Romney enough rope to hang himself now.

Great line by Obama in a speech yesterday:
"I just want to make sure I got this straight. He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street, but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street,"

Manach

Both sides seemed to have stretched the truth to near braking point on occasion during the debate, according to the post CNN analysis. However in real life, this is what happens in everyday discussions - politics, law, business etc. One candidates failure to deal with it at the time it was happening casts reflects negatively on his ability to deal with situations in real time where l'esprit d'escalier is not a viable option

joseph brand

I still don't understand, try as I might, how so much of the media is biased towards the Dems? 'Liberal media bias' is a term that has been spouted on this forum many times. The only alternative I can see is Fox 'news' and that open and honest thinker Rush Limbaugh.

Any sane person can recognise the propaganda and disinformation of Fox and Friends, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and Limbaugh et al. They don't report, they brainwash their viewers while appealing to their ignorance and prejudice.

I think Rick Santorum said it best: Santorum: "We Will Never Have The Elite, Smart People On Our Side"

Ben Mankiewicz sums up the difference in the parties, regarding the public:

"One side says; "Get up in the morning and read the paper!". One side says; "Go to college and listen to your professor!". And one side says; "For the love of god don't!" "Don't listen, don't read, don't learn!"

The above clip also mentions PBS and whole 'Big Bird' frenzy happening at the moment.

Sesame Street is very educational for children. Always has been. But it's not surprising that the GOP would be against educating children. Haven't they tried to block the teaching of the 'theory' of Evolution? They are trying in a lot of States to substitute it altogether with the story of Creation. Wow!

"I'm not going to cut education funding"
"I'm all in favour of Green energy"
"I like what we did in Massachusettes on healthcare"
"We have to have regulation on Wall Street"
"I don't have a $5 Trillion tax cut" Mitt Romney (Democrat)

Very surprised at Chris Wallace (Fox 'news') taking Paul Ryan to task over the 20% deduction in the tax rate resulting in $5 Trillion dollars over 10 years. Obviously Ryan argues profusely but it's all hot air. No specifics or details, which seems to be a trend between Romney and Ryan. Sure, it's fine, they'll let us know after the election. :rolleyes:

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

When Obama was up against Hillary Clinton and then John McCain he did the same thing. Step back let them talk themselves into a corner and then attack. No surprise he is doing the same thing now. I too was disappointed he wasn't tougher against Romney this time but he's given Romney enough rope to hang himself now.

Great line by Obama in a speech yesterday:
"I just want to make sure I got this straight. He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street, but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street,"

Alas for poor Obama the only time he can deliver a (so called) 'great line' is in a speech.

joseph brand

"Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise
Experts say he can't cut rates without losing revenue or favoring the wealthy."

From Politifact.
Obama says Romney's plan is a $5 trillion tax cut.
Half True.

Obama said: "Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he's been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn't been able to identify them."

Later, Romney countered: "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."

Romney could be telling the truth, albeit a half-truth. He won't admit that tax cuts would cost $5 trillion, because he knows (He and Ryan alone know) where they're going to make up for this $480 billion/ year shortfall. Why not tell the voters? As Obama pointed out, "it must be so good, they don't want to tell voters."

But I suppose asking questions is only reserved for college smarty-pants voters and their liberal-biased media. :rolleyes:

Is Romney keeping his cards close to his chest, because he's bluffing? Par for the course in poker, deceitful in politics. The voters need to know. Romney and Ryan have made excuses such as "our plan is too complicated and would take too long to explain." This just shows their arrogance and their contempt for voters. Why tell the voters your plans, they're all too stupid anyway.

FactCheck.org:

A $250,000 Cut for ‘Millionaires’

In March, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center did an analysis of Romney’s corporate, individual and estate tax plan and found it would cost $480 billion a year, or $4.8 trillion over 10 years, beginning in calendar year 2015. At that time, the Tax Policy Center said it did not attempt to gauge the impact of eliminating or reducing tax deductions, credits and exemptions “ecause we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences.”

What is the rationale here? Do Romney/Ryan believe that by withholding their plans for how to offset this massive reduction in revenue, they won't be beholden to any promises, if they get into office?

Their whole; "We'll tell you after the election" approach, in relation to Mitt's tax returns and these loopholes and deductions they intend to close, is suspect at best. This is the exact approach one would expect of a politician ready to screw over the poor, working and middle class in order to pay for the benefits that he and his ilk will receive.

Example:
Sheldon Adelson Stands To Get $2 Billion Tax Cut If Mitt Romney Is Elected:

From Hanlon's report on how Romney's tax plan could benefit Adelson:

• Cut top tax rates, saving Adelson approximately $1.5 million on his annual compensation as chief executive of his casino company.
• Maintain the special low rates on dividends, potentially saving Adelson nearly $120 million on a single year’s worth of dividends, more than enough to recoup his politi- cal donations.

• Maintain the special low rates on capital gains, allowing Adelson to make back his political donations in capital gains tax cuts just by selling a fraction of his stock.

• Provide a tax windfall of an estimated $1.2 billion to Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corp., on untaxed profits from its Asian casinos, as well as a tax exemption forfuture overseas profits. Adelson’s casinos already enjoy a special foreign tax exemp- tion from the Chinese administrative region of Macau, and Gov. Romney would make those foreign profits exempt from U.S. taxes as well.

• Eliminate the estate tax, potentially providing a staggering $8.9 billion windfall to Adelson’s heirs.

This guy is in the business of gambling, which is illegal in around 30 States in the US. He's living the 'American dream' of getting rich on the misery of others.

Critics of gambling claim it leads to increased political corruption, compulsive gambling and higher crime rates. Others claim that gambling is a type of regressive tax on the individuals in local economies where gambling venues are located.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States

nagilum2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Alas for poor Obama the only time he can deliver a (so called) 'great line' is in a speech.

You really hit the nail on the head here. The time for that line was not 16 hours later, after he's had time to huddle with the campaign team and toss around a few witty one-line rebuttals. That ship sailed after the debate ended, and the most effective window really closed about 30s after Romney made the remark.

*IF* Obama had managed to think of that line DURING the debate, and deliver it effectively, it would have been a great sound byte for him. Coming up with it in the post debate analysis just highlights the failure to address the point when it mattered most.

Overheal

all regulations on wall street? that would even be a stretch for a snuffaluffagus to claim

Momento Mori

No matter what they're saying about tax cuts, education, healthcare and everything else, America would really not do itself
any favours if Romney was voted President.

The last thing America needs right now is another George Bush-like anti gay cowboy so that the rest of the world can laugh at them.

Obama was the best thing to have happened to the US in a long time. He was left to clean up a big pile of sh1t that GWB left behind
him and he'll be cleaning it up for some time to come.

My opinion.

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

Why is there such a tendency on this board to only post the fact check from highly biased sources? Why not show something that at least pretends to be legitimate? http://www.politifact.com/

Why ask why when you could actually be addressing what is at the links that were given?

Instead of pointing fingers at a site, you might try actually formulating a response to the information found there.

Or, what the hell, just keep casting aspersions on links.

vetinari

Manach wrote: »

Both sides seemed to have stretched the truth to near braking point on occasion during the debate, according to the post CNN analysis. However in real life, this is what happens in everyday discussions - politics, law, business etc. One candidates failure to deal with it at the time it was happening casts reflects negatively on his ability to deal with situations in real time where l'esprit d'escalier is not a viable option

I'm sorry Manach but this is the definition of false equivalence. You might disagree with Obama's policies but at least the numbers put forward make sense. Obama is raising taxes on for people who earn over 250,000 dollars. That extra money is funding his campaign promises. Romney is lowering the tax rates for everyone by 20%. He is claiming that it is revenue neutral but won't say what deductions he'll get rid of. It's pretty scary that no one has any idea of what he'd cut if he got into office. The most likely outcome is he would enact the tax cuts, not make any deduction changes and just add 5 trillion more to the defiicit.

Amerika

TAX THE RICH – PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES?

Is it a case of just say it enough times and people will believe it? (I believe Romney correctly addressed that sort of ploy in the debate )

President Obama is proposing letting the top two income tax rates revert to 39.6% and 36%, up from 35% and 33% today, and increasing the capital gains and dividend rates to 20% that high-income households pay, up from 15% today. In addition, he would reduce the value of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions.

Okay now, so all those tax increases, which would affect individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making $250,000, would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years. That’s $100 billion a year. President Obama has run deficits of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion each of his four years. And plans on more of the same if reelected. And I’ve heard from this administration, and his supporters here, that the taxing of the rich will also pay for so much more.

Please help this poor old misguided Tea Party brain of mine to understand how "taxing the rich" is the answer?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

TAX THE RICH – PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES?

Is it a case of just say it enough times and people will believe it? (I believe Romney correctly addressed that sort of ploy in the debate )

President Obama is proposing letting the top two income tax rates revert to 39.6% and 36%, up from 35% and 33% today, and increasing the capital gains and dividend rates to 20% that high-income households pay, up from 15% today. In addition, he would reduce the value of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions.

Okay now, so all those tax increases, which would affect individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making $250,000, would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years. That’s $100 billion a year. President Obama has run deficits of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion each of his four years. And I’ve heard from this administration, and his supporters here, that the taxing of the rich will also pay for so much more.

Please help this poor old misguided Tea Party brain of mine to understand how "taxing the rich" is the answer?

No one has claimed that raising such taxes, and and of itself, is 'the answer'.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Please help this poor old misguided Tea Party brain of mine to understand how "taxing the rich" is the answer?

You raise more revenue. Happy to help.

Now if you could explain to me how losing $5tn in revenue over the next 10 years lowers the debt, I'd be truly grateful. [Helpful hint: The Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing for growth.]