Presidential debate thread

[KCClybun]

That was a mistake. The Obama is lazy and stupid and disaffected tact is going to reflect poorly on the Romney campaign if that's a message they stick to.

They've been running in that vain all campaign, just with more subtlety. One of Mitt Romney's lines is "I think Barack Obama is a good guy, he just doesn't understand the economy, he just don't know how to turn this economy around." It hasn't been blatant, but I think the undercurrent is there.

[DjTj]

The Recovery Act got 0 Republican votes in the house and 3 in the Senate, and it didn't work. Obama doesn't want to highlight this because Romney will proudly say that R's didn't vote for the bill that didn't work.

I didn't really remember that so few Republicans voted for it because my impression of that time was Obama really watering down the bill to get bipartisan support. But I suppose that kind of set the tone for his entire first term, where Republicans got him to water down all of his proposals (e.g. Recovery Act, Obamacare) but then didn't support it anyways.

You can tell that Obama actually really regrets doing this, as he said during the debate in his answer to this question:

So we've -- we've seen progress even under Republican control of the House of Representatives. But, ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader is, A, being able to describe exactly what it is that you intend to do, not just saying, "I'll sit down," but you have to have a plan.

Number two, what's important is occasionally you've got to say no, to -- to -- to folks both in your own party and in the other party.

Everyone goes to Washington expecting to broker compromise, but it seems to rarely happen anymore. I don't see there being much bipartisanship under Obama or Romney. One of Obama's good lines from the debate was pointing out that Romney won't have a lot of Democratic friends if his first act is going to be repealing Obamacare.

[Hersh]

He'd have never been nominated, which is an important point, and all politicians over promise on every issue. Obama on employment, deficits or lowering sea levels ring a bell?

I'm running to a meeting, but will try to respond to your other post later.

There is over promising and then there is Mitt Romney. Obama has done some over promising and definitely made mistakes on the deficits and unemployment promises, but he delivered on a lot of things he promised. Also, this time around Obama is promising to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. That's at least better than promising the world.

BTW, I get really annoyed with Mitt Romney being so dismissive of the environment. It's my number one issue and I hold Obama and Dems accountable as well, but Mitt hasn't talked positively about it at all that I am aware of.

[PeterMP]

I have a very basic problem with one of Romney's primary points. Can somebody tell me what I missed? It seems like he said:

1. Taxes are to high and that affects people's hiring

2. Lowering taxes will give people more money, which will help people hire more people so we should lower tax rates.

3. We will close loop holes so that there is no change in the amount of taxes paid.

If your going to to do it in a revenue neutral manner, then you aren't really aren't giving anybody more money to hire anybody, and the net effect should be close to 0 based on that logic.

I think we should work on simplifying the tax code, but this argument seems pretty badly flawed right on the surface to me.

[War Paint]

Some people are acting shocked that Romney won the debate. Anyone who thought Obama was going to easily handle Romney in the debates didn't watch the debates in the Republican primary. I saw Romney dismantle Rick Perry. Rick Perry went from being a front runner to plummeting in the polls. Anytime Rick Perry tried to attack Romney, Romney would come back and school Perry. I thought Obama would be stronger than Perry. Last night, Romney destroyed Obama. Al Gore is trying to blame the Denver air as the reason Obama looked tired and defeated.

I'm not saying it's over because we still have a month left. That said, Romney hit a home run last night. Obama can still pull this out on Nov. 6, but if anyone thinks Obama is gonna coast easily to a 2nd term is delusional.

[Skinz4Life12]

Some people are acting shocked that Romney won the debate. Anyone who thought Obama was going to easily handle Romney in the debates didn't watch the debates in the Republican primary. I saw Romney dismantle Rick Perry. Rick Perry went from being a front runner to plummeting in the polls. Anytime Rick Perry tried to attack Romney, Romney would come back and school Perry. I thought Obama would be stronger than Perry. Last night, Romney destroyed Obama. Al Gore is trying to blame the Denver air as the reason Obama looked tired and defeated.

I'm not saying it's over because we still have a month left. That said, Romney hit a home run last night. Obama can still pull this out on Nov. 6, but if anyone thinks Obama is gonna coast easily to a 2nd term is delusional.

Over for who? Before last night Obama was leading in just about every poll and had the upper hand in all the battle ground states. I doubt one debate is going to change much

[DjTj]

1. Taxes are to high and that affects people's hiring

2. Lowering taxes will give people more money, which will help people hire more people so we should lower tax rates.

3. We will close loop holes so that there is no change in the amount of taxes paid.

One of those is a lie, but 1/3 ain't bad for Romney's statements from the debate.

[Wrong Direction]

How did small businesses ever make money when Bill Clinton was President?

Well, the economy grew at 4.4% the year he took office. Welfare reform put a lot of people in the job market, meaning labor became cheaper. The PC and internet revolutionized productivity and created an entirely new huge industry that needed workers. The change in capital gains and mortgage taxes provided huge advantages to invest in markets and property, one of which resulted in a huge housing boom. All of this, along with the peace dividend conspired to temporarily lower spending, so interest rates were low and steady, as was inflation. A lot goes into the economy.

So what is Romney for? Is he acknowledging that private insurance have higher administrative costs but still wants to move seniors there?

He's not moving seniors into anything. He's offering future seniors a choice. It's only if private plans can provide the same benefits at lower cost that seniors would choose those plans. What is the government to be afraid of if they really are more efficient?

Medicare was extended 8 years under Obama's plan. Is Romney planning on cutting anything or just means testing Medicare? AKA redistribution

It's for transition to a competitive system which market-oriented people think will drive down costs over time better than the politician-run traditional Medicare. This uses the market to reduce spending as opposed to politicians who are incented to maintain their own power and thus not cut anything specific at risk of losing interest groups. Note that Romney's plan doesn't preclude the government from doing anything it wants to cut costs, so there are additional savings through traditional Medicare possible.

(tax on oil companies) And yet Republicans in Congress refuse to eliminate it. Why is that?

Because it's not a tax break for oil companies. It's a tax break for business investment, a small portion of which goes to oil companies. It might be worth cutting as a tradeoff though, which is exactly what Romney said last night.

Romney has stated he wanted to repeal all of Dodd-Frank. Now he is singing the praises of some of it. This is a new line of thinking on his part and the part of Republicans?

Frankly, Democrats don't understand conservatism. Conservatives know markets need the rule of law in order to work. That means some regulation is necessary in markets. The argument isn't over all or nothing, it's a matter of degree.

There is a loophole which allows companies to get tax credits on taxes paid to overseas countries whether or not they US company brings that money back and pays taxes on it. Hope that makes sense. Not sure if it truly encourages outsourcing

Today is honestly the first time I heard about the Democrat bill and I've never heard a Republican response, so I don't know both sides to be honest. There's always a tough dynamic between totally free trade and something like 1928-level tariffs on trade. It's a delicate balance between protecting American and punishing America because your protectionism went too far and caused other countries to remove themselves from purchasing your goods.

Production on federal land increased last year. You know where it decreased? Offshore. Any guess as to why?

The moratorium in the gulf?

Yes, the House GOP was very willing to compromise. So was the Senate GOP for that matter. That's completely disingenuous on your part.

My point was that Obama cannot point to a major piece of legislation where he achieved compromise other than extensions of old tax policy.

I've been asking Republican/conservatives to explain, how does Romney pay for his tax cuts?

I addressed this in another post, but I don't think it exactly adds up now. Even if you accept the tax policy center's analysis (or whatever their name is), you see that he can go a very long way toward paying for it through elimination of deductions. I suspect, when the rubber hits the road, he'd have to tweak his capital gains plan or just adjust the amount he diminishes his rates to pay for itself. The policy goal is still the same, the details just change a little bit to make it add up (e.g., a 15% cut for the rich instead of a 20% cut for the rich), which is fine.

How does he also increase military spending, apparently now will increase education funding and decrease the deficit let alone balance the budget?

I know this is normal from both sides, but he's a candidate for president. None will offer these kinds of specifics unless they're proposing major legislation. The Republicans have identified like $7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years that could be had under their plans. There are ways to pay for all of this.

Furthermore, how will people with pre-existing conditions get to have health insurance if the amount of people on health care isn't broadened by the mandate? I'd love to know.

Through block-granting for people with chronic conditions. I have a friend who has insurance now because of a block grant for Chrone's Disease. The drugs are very expensive, so insurance w/o that help is tough to find. R's would block grant these folks in exchange for coverage from plans.

[deejaydana]

Over for who? Before last night Obama was leading in just about every poll and had the upper hand in all the battle ground states. I doubt one debate is going to change much

This is dependent on how much you believe the polls in my opinion. There are PLENTY of polls that oversample certain demographics. I've gotten to the point where I discount almost all of them.

[Wrong Direction]

I didn't really remember that so few Republicans voted for it because my impression of that time was Obama really watering down the bill to get bipartisan support. But I suppose that kind of set the tone for his entire first term, where Republicans got him to water down all of his proposals (e.g. Recovery Act, Obamacare) but then didn't support it anyways.

What did he water down for R support? Don't say he got rid of the public option. That was to keep his 60th Democrat vote, not to get R support. He claimed to have a good portion of tax cuts in the Recovery Act, but they were one time checks to send to people, and the economic benefit of that is basically nil, so it wasn't going to attract Republicans.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 04:59 PM ----------

I have a very basic problem with one of Romney's primary points. Can somebody tell me what I missed? It seems like he said:

1. Taxes are to high and that affects people's hiring

2. Lowering taxes will give people more money, which will help people hire more people so we should lower tax rates.

3. We will close loop holes so that there is no change in the amount of taxes paid.

If your going to to do it in a revenue neutral manner, then you aren't really aren't giving anybody more money to hire anybody, and the net effect should be close to 0 based on that logic.

I think we should work on simplifying the tax code, but this argument seems pretty badly flawed right on the surface to me.

It's a fair question. The general benefit of lowering the tax rates and getting rid of loop holes is it reduces unnatural economic incentives, diminishes the influence of lobbyists and thus creates a fairer marketplace. However, if it's revenue-neutral even after accounting for more "rich" people paying taxes, the dollar-in dollar-out effect is zero. That means your growth projections have to rely on 1) predictability in the tax code, 2) some projection of hiring for companies who weren't previously getting those tax breaks versus hiring for those who were. The other benefit, which is very important to me, is it reduces the liklihood of bubbles forming, since government is most capable of making that happen. This is a much more stable economic policy.

[PeterMP]

One of those is a lie, but 1/3 ain't bad for Romney's statements from the debate.

But isn't the basic logic flawed.

I mean I at least see some logic in trickle down theory/Regeanomics. I'd even be willing to be in certain economic conditions it works.

But where is the logic in we have to tax people less so they have more money to hire more people, but oh we aren't REALLY going to tax them less because we are going to close loopholes so that they are REALLY paying the same amount?

I mean I understand in the context of debates that sometimes its easy to say things that aren't true or aren't logical that are obscured by the details (I think you see that potentially w/ respect to Romney's claim about the Obamacare board and Obama's claim with respect to Romney's plan end up gutting Medicare).

But this seems like a pretty basic sort of thing to me.

Extra money = jobs.

No extra money = no jobs

Which one is Romney proposing based on the debate last night?

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 05:15 PM ----------

It's a fair question. The general benefit of lowering the tax rates and getting rid of loop holes is it reduces unnatural economic incentives, diminishes the influence of lobbyists and thus creates a fairer marketplace. However, if it's revenue-neutral even after accounting for more "rich" people paying taxes, the dollar-in dollar-out effect is zero. That means your growth projections have to rely on 1) predictability in the tax code, 2) some projection of hiring for companies who weren't previously getting those tax breaks versus hiring for those who were. The other benefit, which is very important to me, is it reduces the liklihood of bubbles forming, since government is most capable of making that happen. This is a much more stable economic policy.

Like I said, I support simplifying the tax code.

However, I don't expect there to be large economic growth, certainly not on the level of balancing the budget based on that, and I haven't seen anything by anybody to suggest it will. A more effecient system makes more sense, and clearly, the wealthy and the corporations have found ways to keep a good bit of the money as is now so switching to something else that is simplier even if it allows companies and the wealthy to keep a good bit of their money on the surface seems like not to bad of an idea to me.

Do you have any evidence that government actually is most capable of making bubbles happen?

Serious question given the issues we have (unemployment, defeciet, healthcare costs, etc.) do you really believe much of a Presidential debate should focus on closing SOME tax loopholes (essentially those to the most wealthy that will help off set their decrease in the tax rate, but not even all of them necessarily and not any in particular)?

I mean I could understand if you were talking about major sweeping changes to the tax code (e.g. going to a flat tax), but Romney appears to have centered the most of his argument around a revenue neutral tweaking of the tax code that isn't really going to put more money in people's hands, and isn't even necessarily going to reduce the complexity of the tax code.

Is that really his solution?

[The Evil Genius]

Awesome.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

@neiltyson

Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

[War Paint]

Over for who? Before last night Obama was leading in just about every poll and had the upper hand in all the battle ground states. I doubt one debate is going to change much

It doesn't matter if he was leading the polls in recent weeks. Romney was leading in the polls a month ago. Polls always shift. Debates are very significant. I'm not saying Romney is guaranteed to win now. He did however make this race much more interesting. Comparing it to a football game, Romney just scored 17 unanswered points in the 4th quarter to tie the game back up.

[KCClybun]

It doesn't matter if he was leading the polls in recent weeks. Romney was leading in the polls a month ago. Polls always shift. Debates are very significant. I'm not saying Romney is guaranteed to win now. He did however make this race much more interesting. Comparing it to a football game, Romney just scored 17 unanswered points in the 4th quarter to tie the game back up.

What polls was Romney leading in a month ago?

And also, can we decide whether polls are important or not now? Because it'l be real interesting to see if some of the people who talk about how the polls don't matter now are singing the same tune next week when Romney will likely see a slight bump.

[HoustonSkin]

But where is the logic in we have to tax people less so they have more money to hire more people, but oh we aren't REALLY going to tax them less because we are going to close loopholes so that they are REALLY paying the same amount?

First, I admit that I have not read Romney's plan (if it is even published somewhere). However, the basic idea to reducing rates and closing loopholes is that it DOES simplify the tax code. Thehardest part to doing taxes is determining what the actual taxable income is. If we can remove just about all deductions (my idea, not Romney's necessarily) the tax code should shrink. This means removing deductions for businesses and individuals.

Secondly, I do not beleive Romney's plan would result in a 0 sum effect. What I would expect when tax rates are reduced and loopholes closed/some deduction eliminated is that there would be a shift in dollars from richer tax payers who more commonly use loopholes and deductions on large sums of money to average tax payers who less commonly use loopholes on smaller sums of money. Under this scenario those that make more should end up paying more in taxes. That is the secret to the trick of raising revenues by lowering rates and closing loopholes.

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't see Republicans removing ANY loopholes/deductions for businesses or that affect the 1%ers. They will not raise the capital gains tax, indeed they want to abolish it as they say taxes were paid on the original investment (as if gains somehow magically aren't income and basis can be adjusted upward thus lessening the gain). The only loopholes/deductions that get canned are home mortgage deduction (and the rich will just pay cash then), healthcare deduction and charitable deduction (donations will dry up, especially from the 1%ers if they can't get an advantage from donating).

And if Mitt's plan is revenue neutral, explain how this will stimulate the 1%ers to create more jobs than they already have under Bush tax cuts.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I could win a debate too if I lied about almost every issue and went back on like every word I had been spewing for months. Obama was caught of guard completely by that. Most than a few times Obama looked like he wanted to tell him he was full of crap. He was just too professional for that.

[RedskinsFan44]

It doesn't matter if he was leading the polls in recent weeks. Romney was leading in the polls a month ago. Polls always shift. Debates are very significant. I'm not saying Romney is guaranteed to win now. He did however make this race much more interesting. Comparing it to a football game, Romney just scored 17 unanswered points in the 4th quarter to tie the game back up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

They were tied briefly in the RCP averages Sept 4 - 6. For me I don't see where Romney flips many voters. The critiques I have heard are that Obama was disinterested, not that he made a major mistatement. Romney has some policy shifts / evasions he will be asked about. Romney won on style, it may sway a few but he needs more to win. Then again, if Obama phones it in two more times that might be enough.

[KCClybun]

I don't see Republicans removing ANY loopholes/deductions for businesses or that affect the 1%ers. They will not raise the capital gains tax, indeed they want to abolish it as they say taxes were paid on the original investment (as if gains somehow magically aren't income and basis can be adjusted upward thus lessening the gain). The only loopholes/deductions that get canned are home mortgage deduction (and the rich will just pay cash then), healthcare deduction and charitable deduction (donations will dry up, especially from the 1%ers if they can't get an advantage from donating).

And if Mitt's plan is revenue neutral, explain how this will stimulate the 1%ers to create more jobs than they already have under Bush tax cuts.

I've never been great at math, but the math never seems to add up.

But I guess if you lie enough times and you lie with more passion and fire than the other guy people will ignore the fact that you're lying.

[War Paint]

What polls was Romney leading in a month ago?

And also, can we decide whether polls are important or not now? Because it'l be real interesting to see if some of the people who talk about how the polls don't matter now are singing the same tune next week when Romney will likely see a slight bump.

Rassmussen and gallop.

[KCClybun]

Worked in 08 didn't it?

Keep telling yourself that, twa. I'm not arguing with you anymore.

[War Paint]

Obama supporters are in a panic. Obama was playing Martyball and Romney just scored unanswered points.

[twa]

I've never been great at math, but the math never seems to add up.

But I guess if you lie enough times and you lie with more passion and fire than the other guy people will ignore the fact that you're lying.

Worked in 08 didn't it?

[Springfield]

I DVR'ed the debate and watched some last night and I'll finish watching the rest tonight. I think Romney looked good but his tax plan really alarms me as a tax payer. I'm a home owner and I'm worried that under his plan I won't be able to deduct my interest. Sure, his plan will let me take home more but I won't get as large of a return as I normally would.

Am I understanding this correctly? This is probably a deal breaker for me if this is the case.

[PeterMP]

Secondly, I do not beleive Romney's plan would result in a 0 sum effect. What I would expect when tax rates are reduced and loopholes closed/some deduction eliminated is that there would be a shift in dollars from richer tax payers who more commonly use loopholes and deductions on large sums of money to average tax payers who less commonly use loopholes on smaller sums of money. Under this scenario those that make more should end up paying more in taxes. That is the secret to the trick of raising revenues by lowering rates and closing loopholes.

But that doesn't directly counter act his idea of growing the economy by reducing taxes on the investor class?

In terms of a middle class tax cut based on closing loop holes, how does that cause massive economic growth to balance the budget and help greatly reduce unemployment?

He clearly said in the debate that it would be revenue neutral and that he didn't support raising taxes on the wealthy (He criticized Obama's plan of raising taxes on people w/ over $250,000. Are you claiming his plan is really a stealth tax increase on the wealthy?).