Presidential debate thread

[MattFancy]

Romney says alot of nice things, but he never goes into detail about them. Is Obama wrong about the $5 trilion? Who knows because Mitt doesn't say what he's going to do. Saying you're going to close loopholes is all well good, but which ones?

[alexey]

Romney says alot of nice things, but he never goes into detail about them. Is Obama wrong about the $5 trilion? Who knows because Mitt doesn't say what he's going to do. Saying you're going to close loopholes is all well good, but which ones?

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented' date=' patient-centered health care reform.[/quote']

Which part of better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform don't you understand?

[Wrong Direction]

Is this sufficient level of detail for you?

He repackaged and rereleased that plan because his original 59 point plan was deemed too voluminous. See here for 87 pages of his plan. I believe taxes begin on page 35-37ish.

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 04:20 PM ----------

Romney says alot of nice things, but he never goes into detail about them. Is Obama wrong about the $5 trilion? Who knows because Mitt doesn't say what he's going to do. Saying you're going to close loopholes is all well good, but which ones?

What is Obama going to do to cut the debt in half? How about reforming Medicare to make it solvent? Why hold Romney to standards that Obama isn't held to?

[Wrong Direction]

A full year ago, Mitt released that 59 point plan. It says right there that he'd repeal AND replace Dodd-Frank. Here's the text:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Page 55:

President Obama’s financial reform legislation, the Dodd-Frank Act, weighed in at over 2,000 pages. It delegated an extraordinarily wide scope of rulemaking

power to the same agencies that had failed to prevent the financial crisis. It mandates 259 rules and suggests another 188. Its Financial Stability Oversight Council and other regulatory agencies will have nearly unlimited power to press financial firms into compliance with the regulatory framework in ways that cannot yet be foreseen.

Page 59

Reform Financial Regulation

As president, Mitt Romney will also seek to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with a streamlined regulatory framework. The recent financial crisis exposed serious weaknesses in a regulatory system that was poorly equipped to deal with dynamic and evolving markets. The government’s response was to layer on new regulations and invent new bureaucracies that do not address the underlying causes of a crisis driven by the over-leveraging of our financial institutions and our homeowners. Rather than dealing directly with those issues, the government gave itself an open check book to write ambiguous regulations that have left our businesses and households uncertain of their obligations and uncompetitive in a global marketplace.

Some of the concepts in Dodd-Frank have a place. Greater transparency for inter-bank relationships, enhanced capital requirements, and provisions to address new forms of complex financial transactions are all necessary elements of effective financial reform. But these concepts must be translated into law in a way that creates a simple, predictable, and efficient regulatory system appropriate for our dynamic economy.

While not an Obama-era invention, the Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in the wake of the accounting scandals of the early 2000s should also be modified as part of any financial reform. Many of its requirements were designed for large companies but impose onerous burdens when applied to mid-size firms. The result is that smaller companies are penalized for growing larger, and those attempting to make the leap are discouraged from seeking out the investment capital with which to expand. Romney will seek to amend the law to remove unreasonable burdens on mid-size companies. These companies are a crucial component in the economy’s job-creation engine, and regulation must not place unnecessary obstacles in their path to growth.

[alexey]

He repackaged and rereleased that plan because his original 59 point plan was deemed too voluminous. See here for 87 pages of his plan. I believe taxes begin on page 35-37ish.

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

I was not able to find any information about what Romney plans to replace ObamaCare with, and there are only 3 general paragraphs on financial regulation (pages 35-36)

(edit: looks like you just posted those 3 paragraphs)

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 04:39 PM ----------

A full year ago, Mitt released that 59 point plan. It says right there that he'd repeal AND replace Dodd-Frank. Here's the text:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

Page 55:

Page 59

Is that a sufficient level of detail for you?

Let me summarize:

1) What Obama did is BAD.

2) Greater transparency for inter-bank relationships, enhanced capital requirements, and provisions to address new forms of complex financial transactions are all necessary elements...

3) simple, predictable, and efficient regulatory system appropriate for our dynamic economy.

4) Sarbanes-Oxley law passed in the wake of the accounting scandals of the early 2000s should also be modified (so that it does not) impose onerous burdens when applied to mid-size firms

[Wrong Direction]

I was not able to find any information about what Romney plans to replace ObamaCare with, and there are only 3 general paragraphs on financial regulation (pages 35-36)

(edit: looks like you just posted those 3 paragraphs)

Here's where you'll find Romney's outline for healthcare:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I'm not sure if those bullets are meaningful to you (not trying to be dismissive, I just work in that industry so I'm familiar with the jargon), but that's the framework for a very different healthcare system.

There are less details about what he'd replace Dodd-Frank with, but he did indicate his problem with the open-ended government authority in Dodd-Frank and generally with what he deems as onerous requirements on small and mid-size banks.

Also, in the debate, he talked about his support for things like a leverage ratio (forget the term he used) and for clarifying for banks what meets the definition of a good loan. The first point here is very important because it's probably the most fundamental thing that had to be addressed after the banking crisis. The second is important to getting the banks to issue more loans again.

[HOF44]

They need to put back in Glass-Steagall just as it was.

This is what sent us down the road to the financial collapse

[alexey]

Here's where you'll find Romney's outline for healthcare:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I'm not sure if those bullets are meaningful to you (not trying to be dismissive, I just work in that industry so I'm familiar with the jargon), but that's the framework for a very different healthcare system.

There are less details about what he'd replace Dodd-Frank with, but he did indicate his problem with the open-ended government authority in Dodd-Frank and generally with what he deems as onerous requirements on small and mid-size banks.

Also, in the debate, he talked about his support for things like a leverage ratio (forget the term he used) and for clarifying for banks what meets the definition of a good loan. The first point here is very important because it's probably the most fundamental thing that had to be addressed after the banking crisis. The second is important to getting the banks to issue more loans again.

In healthcare, I see the following dynamic. There are tons of sick people who cannot pay for their care. Options are:

1) Screw them.

2) Somehow we help pay for their care.

If we go with option 2), we have following options:

1) Government pays with tax payers' money.

2) Healthy people and sick people share a risk pool.

I do not like option 1) for a number of reasons, so I prefer option 2). That's ObamaCare, RomneyCare, etc. What other options are there? Single payer is one, for example, but our country is not a good fit for it (or maybe just not ready for it).

There is also a huge problem with tying healthcare to employment. We need to get free market forces into health care and we need to get economies of scale working in the individual health insurance market. We need standards to do that. ObamaCare sets standards for coverage and a mechanism for the individual market. What other options are there?

Do not even get me started on financial regulation. I think we need to really clamp down on Wall Street "creativity". Break up the too big to fail banks, impose taxes on high speed trading, and so on. There appears to be a HUGE disconnect between Wall Street doing well and our economy doing well.

Government employees who do oversight of the financial industry should be able to fully understand every financial instrument that's in play.

Safety of the system >>>> Creative financial instruments

[KCClybun]

Which part of better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform don't you understand?

It's not that Romney hasn't said he will do things.

It's the that he hasn't explained how he will do things.

He'll repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with something else. Great! What will he replace it with. Because going by the debates, he's either going to repeal Dodd-Frank and not replace it with anything, or he's going to repeal Dodd-Frank, and replace it with something that is identical to Dodd-Frank, only without all the bad stuff Obama put in it, except with some of the stuff Obama put in.

He's going to repeal Obamacare. Okay, what will he replace it with? He's either not going to replace it at all, or he's going to replace it with a plan that includes all the good parts of Obamacare, except, wait, no, his campaign immediately walked back the whole "kids will be able to stay on their parents health insurance until age 26 and there will be no discrimination based on pre-conditions" thing, and that what he did for Massachusetts should be a model for the nation on a state by state basis, except wait, no, in December he said that what he did in the Massachusetts would not be a model for the nation on a state by state basis because it wasn't perfect there, , even though he's been touting how awesome Romneycare was again lately.

And he has refused to explain how he's going to balance the budget, outside of saying he'd end the subsidy to PBS. PBS, need I remind you, is basically a bunch of change in the couch. So he's somehow going to do a significant tax cut across the board, increase military spending, put the money that Obama took out of Medicare back into Medicare, get rid of the capital gains tax and investment taxes, and somehow be revenue neutral and balancing the budget.

I wish conservatives would just be honest and admit this to themselves;

I don't care that nothing Mitt Romney says makes sense. I don't care that none of the math adds up, I don't care that nothing he has proposed seems like it'd solve the huge problems facing our nation, I don't care that he changes his positions. I don't care. I just don't want Barack Obama to be President.

At least that would be honest.

[deejaydana]

I think McCain said it best when he rightly pointed out that Obama was unused to tough questions when the compliant media has been serving up underhand softballs to him the past 3+ years. The second and third debates should be interesting. Apparently close to 70 mil tuned in for the first one.

[Predicto]

If Romney were wrong or lying, it's Obama's job to explain why he's wrong or where he's lying. Why didn't he do that?

I agree, but he also has to be careful not to look like a "scary angry black man" to Middle America voters, especially old ones.

After all, that was the narrative that Fox and the Daily Caller right was pushing just that morning, with the "shocking" video of Obama speaking at a historically black college in 2008.

I suspect Obama overreacted by not being aggressive enough in the debate that evening. Score one for Tucker Carlson.

[Wrong Direction]

There is also a huge problem with tying healthcare to employment. We need to get free market forces into health care and we need to get economies of scale working in the individual health insurance market. We need standards to do that. ObamaCare sets standards for coverage and a mechanism for the individual market. What other options are there?

I think your wants are compatible with Romney's plan. I'm leaving right now so I have to leave it at that. Based on my plans for the next several days, I doubt I'll spend more than a few minutes no this site (maybe until the week after next). Sorry, not trying to leave you hanging.

Do not even get me started on financial regulation. I think we need to really clamp down on Wall Street "creativity". Break up the too big to fail banks, impose taxes on high speed trading, and so on. There appears to be a HUGE disconnect between Wall Street doing well and our economy doing well.

Government employees who do oversight of the financial industry should be able to fully understand every financial instrument that's in play.

Safety of the system >>>> Creative financial instruments

Years ago, I thought I knew a lot about politics with the exception of healthcare. Than I got a job in that industry that makes me follow a ton of issues, so now I'm well informed, but I don't expect 95% of people to understand all of the complexities. It's about 1,000% more complex than social security, for example. People are better informed now than ever because of the debate over the last few years, but most (including politicians) are still pretty uninformed.

I'm sort of in that category now with financial reform. I don't think almost anyone understands the details of those mechanisms. I understand simple concepts like the level of risk associated with mortgage portfolios, but the larger debate on this issue, from both sides, has been at the 100,000 foot level, in my opinion.

[alexey]

I think your wants are compatible with Romney's plan. I'm leaving right now so I have to leave it at that. Based on my plans for the next several days, I doubt I'll spend more than a few minutes no this site (maybe until the week after next). Sorry, not trying to leave you hanging.

I think that a lot of things are compatible with the Romney plan because the Romney plan is so wonderfully unspecific. He wants to keep the good parts, remember?

I do not even think that he wants to repeal ObamaCare. It would be too much trouble and too much of a political liability. At best he would make it look Ike he tried and blame the Democrats for it... but if we take him at his word, then we have to conclude that he wants to repeal it and replace it with a happy pink cloud made of everybody's wishes.

Years ago, I thought I knew a lot about politics with the exception of healthcare. Than I got a job in that industry that makes me follow a ton of issues, so now I'm well informed, but I don't expect 95% of people to understand all of the complexities. It's about 1,000% more complex than social security, for example. People are better informed now than ever because of the debate over the last few years, but most (including politicians) are still pretty uninformed.

I'm sort of in that category now with financial reform. I don't think almost anyone understands the details of those mechanisms. I understand simple concepts like the level of risk associated with mortgage portfolios, but the larger debate on this issue, from both sides, has been at the 100,000 foot level, in my opinion.

I see the financial sector as the grease and the oil of the economic engine. It is very much needed, but getting creative and pouring oil into your gas tank will lead to trouble.

I am very much troubled by messed up incentives where the best and the brightest people are driven to Wall Street to squeeze money out of super complex mathematics or to skim the market using genious algorithms that rely on getting market information exta nanosecond earlier than some other guy. I understand the important role of financial markets in the economy. However, I also understand that if the financial side of things a can take too big a bite out of the pie, it will readily do so, walk away with bazillions, and the whole system will go to ****.

So I think it is a huge problem if only the smartest people in the room understand these financial instruments, and all the smartest people in the room happen to wink wink work for the same industry and have similar incentives. It is simply not a risk that I think we should take.

I am a huge beliver in free markets and in people following incentives. I have no doubt that an ability to make money by screwing people will necessarily lead to people getting screwed, regardless of long term consequences.

[Elessar78]

In healthcare, I see the following dynamic. There are tons of sick people who cannot pay for their care. Options are:

1) Screw them.

2) Somehow we help pay for their care.

If we go with option 2), we have following options:

1) Government pays with tax payers' money.

2) Healthy people and sick people share a risk pool.

I do not like option 1) for a number of reasons, so I prefer option 2). That's ObamaCare, RomneyCare, etc. What other options are there? Single payer is one, for example, but our country is not a good fit for it (or maybe just not ready for it).

There is also a huge problem with tying healthcare to employment. We need to get free market forces into health care and we need to get economies of scale working in the individual health insurance market. We need standards to do that. ObamaCare sets standards for coverage and a mechanism for the individual market. What other options are there?

Do not even get me started on financial regulation. I think we need to really clamp down on Wall Street "creativity". Break up the too big to fail banks, impose taxes on high speed trading, and so on. There appears to be a HUGE disconnect between Wall Street doing well and our economy doing well.

Government employees who do oversight of the financial industry should be able to fully understand every financial instrument that's in play.

Safety of the system >>>> Creative financial instruments

Wanna make the country healthier?

Stop food subsidies. We over produce stuff like corn so we have to turn it into something—most of it unhealthy.

These things are not God-given, unalienable rights. People will just need to pay more for them if they want them.

[88Comrade2000]

SNL's parody of the first debate sucked.

[Bang]

Can't tell if you're kidding or not, Bang, but I don't think USS is talking about "looks" as in visuals. If we're talking strictly visuals, then they are both reasonably handsome, well-dressed guys.

The truth is, Obama was unprepared for the debate. I don't necessarily buy USS's argument that it's because he's arrogant or surrounded by yes-men or whatever (sometimes, **** happens. Nobody wins every single time. I expect him to do a lot better in the town hall debate)...but yeah, Obama was certainly unprepared. Romney had better answers, he delivered them with more confidence, and just generally knew his stuff. I don't think superficial looks had anything to do with that...

I'm not kidding.

It's been shown over the last several days that most of what Romney "knew" was a load of bull****.

and people still claim he "won".

So yes, it's all about looks.

We have shown this week to be slow, ignorant, and happily so.

because this

If Romney were wrong or lying, it's Obama's job to explain why he's wrong or where he's lying. Why didn't he do that?

Is wrong.

Yes, it is Obama's job in a debate to call him on it.

But it is ourt job as voters to say it's bull**** whether it is called by the debate opponent or not.

We should not be so happily ignorant as to continue to proclaim victory because he LOOKED more confident while LYING.

I don't care if it's Romney or Obama who did this. WE SHOULD DEMAND BETTER. Yes, Obama should have been better prepped for the debate, but that isn't the point.

The point is we're sitting here this week lauding a person who "won" because he LOOKED like he won.

No other reason.

None.

We should BURN DOWN the media whores who have concinved us that THIS is what we're expected to swallow.

But we do NOT.

We gladly accept their 'analysis' of what consituitues a win or a loss in a presidential debate.

"Call me on my lies or I win" does us NO SERVICE.

LOOKING RELAXED IS NOT IMPORTANT

A HALF SMILE IS NOT A QUALIFICATION TO BE PRESIDENT.

We should NOT accept it.

But we do, because we are a WEAK MINDED, PLASTIC, IGNORANT, and ARTIFICIAL PEOPLE.

And i'm not kidding even slightly.We may as well turn our political process over to American Idol.

Anybody that doesn't like hearing that can open up their ears to the rest of the week. Don't arguie with me over it, argue with the country that has accepted this bull**** as reality. It's disgusting.

~Bang

[skinsmarydu]

That was absolutely awesome, Bang.:applause::1stplace:

[Going Commando]

The first point, for instance: Obama claims Romney is providing a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. Romney says there are no cuts of that kind of scale, on his plan.

Tax center analysis says that by 2015, it'll cut $480 billion which will account for 5 trillion over the following 10 years. So by 2025, it'll be 5 trillion? I guess anything can be a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, if you wait long enough...

This is not a silly issue. It's probably the central issue of the campaign really. If Romney goes through with the plan he's been promising in his campaign, it will either explode the deficit or screw over the middle class.

Romney's 5 trillion dollar tax cut is in addition to his plan to make the Bush cuts permanent which is another cool 1 trillion and add 2 trillion dollars in unwanted military spending. His plans add 8 trillion to the deficit. There is nothing trivial about that.