2nd Presidential Debate - Hempstead, New York

matthew8

Apparently a close win for Obama. I think to get an appreciation of the political effect of a debate it's best I don't watch it, because then I get a bias going. And they're generally awful. The MSM is generally saying that this should finally put an end to Romney's momentum. It should definitely be closer by the time of the foreign policy debate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow. I'm sorry, but that's simply delusional nonsense.

Under Ryan's plan, which Romney intends to implement if he's elected:

A. Romney and the 1% would pay less than 1% in taxes.
B. Capital gains taxes would be abolished.
C. Inheritance taxes would be abolished.

Where class warfare is coming from is quite clear, and it's not on the part of the Democrats.

And he looked embarrassed? You see what you want to see, methinks.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What exemptions and loopholes is Romney going to close though? He has yet to name a single one. I wholeheartedly support a simplified tax code, it makes complete sense, but one cannot run for President and not explain how you are going to simplify the tax code. The only specific Romney ever gives is the rate cut. The rate cut loses 5 trillion in revenue, the onus is on Romney to explain exactly how he will make up this shortfall.

He point blank refuses to give an specifics. How can anyone know if a plan will work without seeing the plan? It's ludicrous.

Answer me this: are there enough loopholes to close and exemptions to eliminate to make up the difference?

Notice too how the Democrats derail any discussion of tax policy into class warfare — mention taxes at all, and it's an immediate opportunity to rail against the 1 percent. Obama looked positively embarrassed several times last night at having to do this, but it's clearly what his strategists are advising.

You saw a different Obama than I it seems. Give me a time stamp on the youtube video of the debate where Obama looked embarrased.

The Bishop!

"Simplifying the tax code." Sounds so nice doesn't it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

hooradiation wrote: »

You'd think this would spark more comments on said substance, as opposed to endless complaining that everyone is just so mean and out to get your preferred candidates.

Yeah you’d think so. But if something doesn’t glorify Obama or demonize Romney, then it’s not worth posting or reading, I guess.

IMO... Obama won on a few issues, but I thought Romney was stronger in the debate on the Economy, Taxes, Jobs, and the Deficit (I noticed the CNN polls put Romney stronger there also, but picked Obama the overall winner… go figure). Those are the most important subjects facing our country in this election, and what will ultimately decide this election… well, I hope anyway.

But "endless"... I don't think so! It will all be over in less than 3 weeks. And in keeping with your other "opinion," don’t you find it interesting that the media has refused to report on all the numerous death and assassination tweets against Romney made since last night’s debate? Here’s a sampling for your reading enjoyment.

- "If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says "Assassinate Me Bitch".
- "Yall ready to assasinate romney?"
- "Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney."
- "Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass."
- "I aint gone lie… Food stamps the ****! I mite assasinate romney my damn self if he get elected!"
- "If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.
- "No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll be #1."
- "At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!"
- "If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP."
- "If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children."
- "IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS."

Since Romney's not the President, or since he's just a republican, I guess it's nothing to be concerned about - in the media or elsewhere, eh?

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Corkfeen

Amerika, you surely didn't just use Infowars as a source of news? You'll find plenty of idiots on twitter which is hardly shocking. But infowars basically consists of a deluge of conspiracy theories and in no way constitutes a news resource, alternative or otherwise. Any credible threats tend to get dealt with by the way and It's rather lazy journalism to base news on what individuals tweet. It's awful to make such threats and to be the victim of them but it's not exactly a representation of democrats.

Amerika

Corkfeen wrote: »

Amerika, you surely didn't just use Infowars as a source of news? You'll find plenty of idiots on twitter which is hardly shocking. But infowars basically consists of a deluge of conspiracy theories and in no way constitutes a news resource, alternative or otherwise. Any credible threats tend to get dealt with by the way and It's rather lazy journalism to base news on what individuals tweet.

I doubt the threats came from the Tea Party. And it was either them (Infowars) or Twitchy as we can't expect the mainstream media to report on something like this (well since it's not against Obama that is). Catch 22? It's pretty easy to see if those tweets are legit or not. And do you not think if those kind of tweets were focused against Obama, it wouldn't be front page news at the New York Times?

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Romney was not clear. It's like we watched 2 different debates. Name one deduction or exemption he will eliminate?

President Obama has also stated multiple times, including last night, that he would simplify the tax code during a second term. When you say —



— you should note that Obama has similarly refused to give specific proposals. As CNN notes:



You state that "one cannot run for President and not explain how you are going to simplify the tax code." By your own logic, the president himself should immediately withdraw from the race, correct?

Nice twist there. The huge difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama has a 4 year track record to judge him by. Obama is running on the basis of having done a decent job for 4 years whereas Romeny is running on basically a reform ticket. Obama believes what he did in the last four years is working and will do more of the same in his next term, Romney believes the last 4 years were a disaster and something needs to change. Well Mitt tell us what exactly you want to change or there's no point in voting for you.

Yes, absolutely. Many countries have successfully implemented a flat tax, or a system that moves closer to a flat tax. Yet you seem to imagine this can't be done in the United States? Why?

It can be done in the US. Should it be done? I don't know. That's not the issue here.

The issue is that Mitt Romney is saying he's going to cut the tax rate without giving any details on how he'll pay for it. His position is "trust me, I used to be a CEO and a Governor". He's asking the people to basically take a shot in the dark on him, which I find ludicrous.

The only cuts he's actually commited to are Planned Parenthood and PBS as far as I'm aware. I'd be only too happy to be enlightened otherwise.


So to sum up:

Obama can be light on detail because he's actually been President for 4 years and is promising a continuation of the last 4 years strategy.

Romney cannot be light on detail because he is proposing complete course change for the federal government.

It doesn't matter what party is in power the onus is always on the challenger to be detailed.

Corkfeen

Amerika wrote: »

Well it was either them or Twitchy as we can't expect the mainstream media to report on something like this (well since it's not against Obama that is). And it's pretty easy to see if those tweets are legit or not. And do you not think if those kind of tweets were forcused against Obama, it wouldn't be front page news at the New York Times?

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/17/post-presidential-debate-obama-supporters-renew-vows-to-murder-mitt-romney/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

As soon as arrests are made or when an investigation is opened, it would make it onto news sites. Not the day after some individual tweets it. Here's an example (Not just on Smoking gun btw):
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-twitter-death-threats-486712

The threat was made on september 3rd and he was arrested on September 5th. News sites didn't begin to report on it til September 6th because the truth is there is no real point in reporting on a tweet, stating what a tweet says with no real story to go with it is absurd.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Seriously? Numerous times Romney and Ryan have been asked about their supposed 'deductions and loopholes'. And what about those tax returns? Blood from a stone.

Barack Obama says Mitt Romney would spend $2 trilllion that the military hasn't asked for.

Politifact: True.

Another 'red herring'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am not rationalising it away, I am reasoning it. I have explained myself quite clearly. Obama has a track record at the job, if you like that track record vote for him. Romney has no track record and no details.

And here we have it spelled out in black and white: You expect a high level of detail from Romney, but there is no onus on the incumbent president to be similarly specific about his plans.

I have explained myself and my stance. This is a dead end. Let's agree to disagree?

MrMister

I've love to see someone challenge Romney on his concept of tax cuts for the rich leading to Job creation.

A great example was this TED talk released by venture capitalist Nick Hanauer where he put in really simple, easy-to-understand terms the concept that giving money back to middle class families means they will buy more stuff leading to more job creation than giving tax breaks to a millionaire. This comes from the first non-family investor in Amazon by the way.

Considering this is Romney's whole ideology, I'd love to see someone nail him and get an on-record comment on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dropkickrugby

Amerika wrote: »

After the debate, it seems the majority of MSNBC's panel of "undecided voters" were swayed towards Mitt Romney because of his performance (regardless how the MSNBC guy spins it). Isn’t that a kick in the teeth?

the same msnbc owned by huge multinational and weapons manufacturer GE?

dropkickrugby

Mjollnir wrote: »

Did anyone else notice the utterly dripping condescension from Romney when questioned on whether his numbers were correct?

He sneered "OF COURSE" they're correct, after all HE'S the one who made them and he has spent time in the business world, .

he sounds like Norah Batty off dragons den, and irish referendum fame, and now (regretfully) newstalk morning radio. Sadly, her reversal into that spot spelled an end to my listenership of anything on that station bar off the ball.

Duck Soup

The 2012 Obama Corporate Tax Plan proposal. Slightly longer than "I'll tell you later."

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf

Amerika

dropkickrugby wrote: »

the same msnbc owned by huge multinational and weapons manufacturer GE?

You betcha... the same GE who’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, master at shipping jobs to China and not paying corporate taxes, was hand picked to head the highly touted Obama’s "Jobs Council." Isn’t US politics grand?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

One of the best write-ups on the debate I've seen, no punches pulled.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/last-night-debate-13800806?src=soc_fcbk&fb_action_ids=4153003260990&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%224153003260990%22%3A535720699776895}&action_type_map={%224153003260990%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map

But not even I expected Romney to let his entitled, Lord-of-the-Manor freak flag fly as proudly as he did on Tuesday night. He got in the president's face. He got in Crowley's face. That moment when he was hectoring the president about the president's pension made him look like someone to whom the valet has brought the wrong Mercedes.

"You'll get your chance in a moment. I'm still speaking."

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/last-night-debate-13800806#ixzz29aYuIXxK

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are disagreeing with me.

It's not a double standard. I'm holding 2 distinctly different candidates to different standards because one has a track record on the issues at hand and the other does not.

If Romney is making the case that he should replace Obama he needs to clarify why that is. I am not tying myself in knots either , I am restating my position and you are taking issue with the logic of said position.

dropkickrugby

Amerika wrote: »

You betcha... the same GE who’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, master at shipping jobs to China and not paying corporate taxes, was hand picked to head the highly touted Obama’s "Jobs Council." Isn’t US politics grand?

in general no, its a cesspool of an auction.

Duck Soup

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The logic is similar, the math and scale are different. I have yet to hear one economist or study say that what President Obama is essaying is unworkable. Obama also lays out a number of the tax breaks and loopholes he would eliminate.

On the other hand, Romney is suggesting a vastly more huge tax cut - both corporate and personal - that would require every tax break and loophole under the sun to be closed. After months of prompting, he gives us...public television.

If you can't see the difference, I'm lost.

Mr.Micro

Duck Soup wrote: »

The logic is similar, the math and scale are different. I have yet to hear one economist or study say that what President Obama is essaying is unworkable. Obama also lays out a number of the tax breaks and loopholes he would eliminate.

On the other hand, Romney is suggesting a vastly more huge tax cut - both corporate and personal - that would require every tax break and loophole under the sun to be closed. After months of prompting, he gives us...public television.

If you can't see the difference, I'm lost.

The way Romney was talking last night everybody is going to get a tax break, plus lowering Corporation tax was mentioned. How is he going to raise revenue then.......borrow, lol?

Duck Soup

Just while I remember it, apart from Romney's "binders full of women" story not answering the question about equal pay, the story itself is a straightforward lie.

Romney didn't "seek out" qualified women for senior positions in state government - a Massachusetts women's coalition called the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, or MassGAP, started putting together lists of high quality female candidates in 2002 and before Romney's gubernatorial election gave the lists to both candidates' camps.

So a wee bit of a porkie pie there I feel.

MrMister

Romney says government can't create jobs but he is running for a government job to create jobs, oh you republicans...

Mjollnir

Duck Soup wrote: »

Just while I remember it, apart from Romney's "binders full of women" story not answering the question about equal pay, the story itself is a straightforward lie.

Romney didn't "seek out" qualified women for senior positions in state government - a Massachusetts women's coalition called the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, or MassGAP, started putting together lists of high quality female candidates in 2002 and before Romney's gubernatorial election gave the lists to both candidates' camps.

So a wee bit of a porkie pie there I feel.

Oh, yeah. It was a flat-out lie.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41055_Romneys_Binders_Full_of_Women_Yet_Another_Lie

Even more telling (lifted from Crooks & Liars)

Random thought: In the state of Massachusetts, with more colleges per square foot than any state in the union -- including Harvard, M.I.T., Tufts, Boston University, Boston College, Smith, Wellesley, and Mount Holyoke -- and Mittens had to form a special search committee to find "qualified" women for his administration?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

don’t you find it interesting that the media has refused to report on all the numerous death and assassination tweets against Romney made since last night’s debate? Here’s a sampling for your reading enjoyment.

Thats about as substantial as reading the comments section on youtube.

**** me, I thought you were here to actually discuss the issues.

southsiderosie

Duck Soup wrote: »

Just while I remember it, apart from Romney's "binders full of women" story not answering the question about equal pay, the story itself is a straightforward lie.

Romney didn't "seek out" qualified women for senior positions in state government - a Massachusetts women's coalition called the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, or MassGAP, started putting together lists of high quality female candidates in 2002 and before Romney's gubernatorial election gave the lists to both candidates' camps.

So a wee bit of a porkie pie there I feel.

Regardless of whether it was or not, the fact that in an attempt to pander to women he would claim that he had to get outside help to hire women was mind-boggling. He's managed a firm and ran two political campaigns, and in all of that time never hired, networked with, or came across any women who would be suitable to appoint to his government? Really? What does that say about him as a manager?

I am no fan of George W. Bush, but he was willing and able to appoint women to serious, powerful positions within his cabinet and inner circle of advisors, and could do so without outside help.

Mjollnir

southsiderosie wrote: »

Regardless of whether it was or not, the fact that in an attempt to pander to women he would claim that he had to get outside help to hire women was mind-boggling. He's managed a firm and ran two political campaigns, and in all of that time never hired, networked with, or came across any women who would be suitable to appoint to his government? Really? What does that say about him as a manager?

I am no fan of George W. Bush, but he was willing and able to appoint women to serious, powerful positions within his cabinet and inner circle of advisors, and could do so without outside help.

^^^This.

Damn.

Ozymandius2011

Unfortunately for Obama there remains one final jobs-report to be released on November 2nd and if it confirms the widespread suspicions about the 7.8% figure being skewed that may result a last minute swing to Romney.

Mark200

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Obama there remains one final jobs-report to be released on November 2nd and if it confirms the widespread suspicions about the 7.8% figure being skewed that may result a last minute swing to Romney.

But it's coming up to Christmas, so I'd imagine the unemployment rate will fall as it does every year coming up to Christmas...?

Duck Soup

Mark200 wrote: »

But it's coming up to Christmas, so I'd imagine the unemployment rate will fall as it does every year coming up to Christmas...?

This is true and, after all, if the 'widespread suspicion' that the present administration were jimmying the numbers is true, wouldn't they just simply bring it down a bit more in order to facilitate an electoral win? My money's on 3.4% unemployment in the November figures.

Ozymandius2011

It's not so much that the admin is suspected of rigging the statistics as that several analysts have spoken of them as being filled with holes, possibbly resulting in an upward revision that will make them number next time look like an increase to the detriment of Obama.

joseph brand

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's not so much that the admin is suspected of rigging the statistics as that several analysts have spoken of them as being filled with holes, possibbly resulting in an upward revision that will make them number next time look like an increase to the detriment of Obama.

For any red sleuths, worried about the numbers being 'jimmied', rest assured that they could have been skewed the last 12 years. ( when I say 12 I mean 14, skewing my own figures)

[-0-]

Just an idea, can we get polls added after the next debate so people can vote on who won?

joseph brand

Mitt Romney Isn’t a Flip-Flopper; Romney’s “Lying for the Lord”
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/mitt-romney-isnt-a-flip-flopper-romneys-lying-for-the-lord/

Why is it that Romney’s faith gives rise to distrust? It isn’t because his faith is different than mine. It isn’t that his faith is different than the majority of Americans. The problem is that “Lying for the Lord” is a teaching of the Mormon church. Lying for the Lord is such a well known concept that there is a Wikipedia page devoted to the practice. Here a just a few of the troubling quotes:

“ …lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted (as in failing to provide tax returns) by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light.

“We really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions.” He goes on to say, “We never provide meat when milk will do”, and, “We seek to answer any serious question by finding the most direct route to the Sacred Grove.” [2]

Mormons are well suited to dishonest work, since they can reason in their 'minds' that they're 'Lyin for the Lord'.

Now, what's Ryan's reason/ excuse for lying? He ain't no mormon.

In other news, Tagg Romney wanted to take a swing at Obama on Tuesday night, but the Secret Service caused him to think twice.

TAGG ROMNEY: Jump out of your seat and you want to rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him. But you know you can’t do that because… Well, first there is a lot of Secret Service between you and him

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/17/1038161/tagg-romney-says-he-wants-to-take-a-swing-at-obama/?mobile=wp


Seems like a stand up guy. Remember the tennis club in 'Trading Places'? Romney Central.

Higher

O.K so two days on, I've decided to list out what remains in my head from the debate.

"My pension is not as big as yours"

"I'm the father of two girls and I want them to have the same chance as boys"

"Actually governor he did say that" - In relation to Romney claiming Obama did not mention terrorism.

"You're pro coal now? You stood at a podium pointing at a coal plant and closed it down"

Obama's rebuttal to Romney's insinuation that he played politics in reaction to Stevens death.

And finally Romney's odd comments about giving women flexible hours so that they can get home in the evening and cook dinner and look after kids (WTF)

That has to be a resounding success for Obama. I can't remember anything Romney said that would put him in a positive light for me. I am really struggling here.

[-0-]

Higher wrote: »

O.K so two days on, I've decided to list out what remains in my head from the debate.

"My pension is not as big as yours"

"I'm the father of two girls and I want them to have the same chance as boys"

"Actually governor he did say that" - In relation to Romney claiming Obama did not mention terrorism.

"You're pro coal now? You stood at a podium pointing at a coal plant and closed it down"

Obama's rebuttal to Romney's insinuation that he played politics in reaction to Stevens death.

And finally Romney's odd comments about giving women flexible hours so that they can get home in the evening and cook dinner and look after kids (WTF)

That has to be a resounding success for Obama. I can't remember anything Romney said that would put him in a positive light for me. I am really struggling here.

Don't forget Barry's comments about Romney making millions from investing in outsourcing to China.

Amerika

I asked earlier for someone, anyone, to please point me to where Barack Obama mentioned anything about a second-term agenda in the debate. It’s not surprising I didn’t get any answers, because he had none to offer. I think this might have the biggest miscue of Obama’s campaign.

People are hurting, regardless of the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how things are improving. Between rent, filling up their cars with gasoline at almost $4/gallon, and the high cost of food (which the price of oil has greatly contributed to) they can barely get by. They are looking for real improvements. IMO, the polls were in Obama’s favor before the debates because they were hoping Obama would come out with a real plan to get the economy moving and increase good paying jobs, and perhaps hope he would move more to the center. And the majority were greatly disappointed.

Unfortunately for team Obama, people also got to see Romney be himself in the debates, without protruding horns, and they liked what they saw. The saw someone with proven successful executive experience who appeared capable of becoming president, someone with plans and an agenda, and someone who exhibited empathy for the plight of the average American... who really looked like he wanted to help them. Obama lost out on the first two debates with no plan, and with the third one being on foreign policy, I don’t think he can recover. And I don’t see the polls shifting back much in his favor until the election. That is why I really think the polls have shifted so dramatically in Romney's favor. He still has a shot winning the election through the electorial college, but I think he has lost the hearts of the majority of Americans.

Ozymandius2011

The unemployment figures have just been revised upwards by 43,000 - the highest such revision in 5 years. Bad news for Obama.

Amerika

[-0-] wrote: »

Just an idea, can we get polls added after the next debate so people can vote on who won?

LOL… No need! I can already give you the results. 1, maybe 2 people at most, thinking Romney won and 100 believing Obama kicked a$$ and took names.

Higher

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The unemployment figures have just been revised upwards by 43,000 - the highest such revision in 5 years. Bad news for Obama.

Game over for Obama I think. Also probably game over for Hillary in 2016, I read somewhere that economists are predicting an upswing of 12 million new jobs as the economy recovers over the next 4 years, irrespective of whoever is in power. I believe this is why Romney keeps repeating the 12 million job figure.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah you’d think so. But if something doesn’t glorify Obama or demonize Romney, then it’s not worth posting or reading, I guess.

For a candidate you feel was "stronger in the debate on the Economy, Taxes, Jobs, and the Deficit" you seem to be incapable of articulating how.
I mean if this pretence of being the poor, put upon victim isn't taking up all of your time.

Amerika wrote: »

But "endless"... I don't think so! It will all be over in less than 3 weeks. And in keeping with your other "opinion," don’t you find it interesting that the media has refused to report on all the numerous death and assassination tweets against Romney made since last night’s debate?

No, I don't, there are more interesting things that are actually news to report on, then continuing this martyr act of painting republicans in general and Romney in particular as the victim of an all pervasive conspiracy.

It's pathetic.

Amerika

IMO… If Romney does win this election, I think Democrats would need to look to someone else rather than Hillary in 2016 if they want a chance. They probably owe the nod to Hillary, but I think the voters attitude towards her is changing for the worse. She’s starting to look weak, and little more than a whipping girl. She put up with Bill’s antics, let Obama outmaneuver her in 2008 and been taken advantage of by the Obama administration, and now has taken the heat off Obama and claimed responsibility for the Benghazi debacle. Although she will have 3 years to rebuild her reputation, somehow I don’t think Democrats give many second looks to losers.

But if the economy and jobs take a turn for the better over the next four years, Romney would almost be a lock for reelection, so Hillary might be a good choice for them knowing she would lose.

Any up and coming Democrats in the wings? Evan Bayh perhaps?

Suryavarman

Mjollnir wrote: »

Wow. I'm sorry, but that's simply delusional nonsense.

Under Ryan's plan, which Romney intends to implement if he's elected:

A. Romney and the 1% would pay less than 1% in taxes.
B. Capital gains taxes would be abolished.
C. Inheritance taxes would be abolished.

Where class warfare is coming from is quite clear, and it's not on the part of the Democrats.

And he looked embarrassed? You see what you want to see, methinks.

Romney has said that he will not implement Ryan's budget plan. He has said that he has his own budget plan that he plans on implementing.

Romney also explicitly said in the debate that he will only abolish capital gains tax for families earning less than $200,000 per year.

Brian? wrote: »

Answer me this: are there enough loopholes to close and exemptions to eliminate to make up the difference?

To quote from this New York Times article:

If there is one big-ticket budget item on which Democrats and Republicans should be able to find common ground, it’s tax breaks. Each of the various bipartisan deficit panels has called for a big reduction, saying such breaks — exemptions, deductions, credits and other loopholes — are inefficient and unaffordable. All told, they cost the federal government about $1.2 trillion in lost revenue last year. As it happens, the budget deficit was $1.3 trillion.

So there are enough deductions and other similar things to "pay" for Romney's tax plan twice over and leave enough extra revenue to pay for his planned increase in military spending.

Amerika

hooradiation wrote: »

For a candidate you feel was "stronger in the debate on the Economy, Taxes, Jobs, and the Deficit" you seem to be incapable of articulating how.
I mean if this pretence of being the poor, put upon victim isn't taking up all of your time.

I doubt you really want my viewpoint, but I will give it in the hopes others might be interested (at a minimum it will give them ammunition to call me hopelessly out-of-touch ). On the economy, his attack on Obama was effective with the point-by-point critique of his economic record. Romney's five-point plan played well to the viewers. (Hey, at least he has a plan and an agenda ). Later he cemented the economy topic with the Bush question, noting he was for small businesses rather than big businesses. It all played well into those undecideds who are disillusioned with Obama. Then, although not extensive, Romney explained his tax plan well enough to garner voter satisfaction and willingness to give it a chance. Romney also played on everyone’s attitude that Obama is anti-oil, anti-coal, and anti-gas, and that gas prices have doubled. He then pointed out his plans for a reasonable move to energy independence. I think people believe his multitude of plans will help to bring good paying jobs back unlike the green jobs initiatives the president focused on which can be summed up by one word… bankrupt.

Finally, what cemented his win in the debate for me was the line which will resonate the remainder of the election "I think you know better… I think you know that these last four years haven't been so good as the president just described and that you don't feel like your confident that the next four years are going to be much better either." (so much of this election is starting to remind me of the Carter - Reagan election of 1980. For those who remember Carter was facing a tough economy, lousy jobs status, bad international events, had no ideas nor agenda, and basically ran his election on the view that Reagan was dangerous).

No, I don't, there are more interesting things that are actually news to report on, then continuing this martyr act of painting republicans in general and Romney in particular as the victim of an all pervasive conspiracy.

It's pathetic.

No, it's reality.