On October 04 2012 19:48 rogzardo wrote: Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.
That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.
None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”
In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.
From what I saw Romney won the debate by acting more liberal than Obama and just straight up lying about everything he has said up to this point. I suppose that's one way to do it.
On October 04 2012 20:51 DoubleReed wrote: From what I saw Romney won the debate by acting more liberal than Obama and just straight up lying about everything he has said up to this point. I suppose that's one way to do it.
On October 04 2012 20:36 oneofthem wrote: waiting to see ryan say nothing about repealing or privatizing anything, and attacking obama from the left on various medicare or whatnot planks. lol
if people can't see what this circus is about by this point then i have no hope
Don't forget the part where he still never presents a platform of any kind, making it hard to refute.
On October 04 2012 20:51 DoubleReed wrote: From what I saw Romney won the debate by acting more liberal than Obama and just straight up lying about everything he has said up to this point. I suppose that's one way to do it.
Anyone have a time machine so they can travel back to the primary season and leak this debate onto the internet? Preferably during the time when Herman Cain was ahead so we could have some chuckles.
On October 04 2012 20:36 oneofthem wrote: waiting to see ryan say nothing about repealing or privatizing anything, and attacking obama from the left on various medicare or whatnot planks. lol
if people can't see what this circus is about by this point then i have no hope
Meh, this is what I'm thinking so far after watching the first debate:
1. Romney won the debate overall, hands down (I'd give Romney about a B and Obama about a C or C-, and I'm probably voting for Obama) 2. Obama wasn't aggressive enough- which matters a ton 3. Romney lied and bullshitted a lot more- which matters, but not as much if you *act* convincingly (it's a debate, not a lie detector test) 4. Obama didn't come across with his usual ease and eloquence 5. Romney acted really collected, sometimes even smirking 6. Since there's no moderation, they can both do and say whatever they want... and most of the time, Romney one-upped Obama (whether it was getting the last word in, just dismissing anything Obama said, etc.)
Romney played the game a lot better. I'm hoping that Obama is saving some juicy stuff for another debate... but other than the fact that Obama occasionally "spoke to the American people" (I liked that tactic) and sometimes pointed out how Romney had no actual plan (still too passively though), he essentially let Romney walk all over him.
And it was a lot worse because everyone figured Obama- who's known for being an excellent orator- would win this debate. But he got cleaned up pretty handily. And now everyone expects Biden to lose because Ryan is quite the smooth talker as well. Maybe another reversal? Possibly, but highly unlikely in my opinion. I'm thinking Ryan runs over a stuttering Biden. (Again, these debates aren't about presenting the facts, and the moderator obviously can't keep a time limit- let alone keep the candidates honest. These debates are about saying anything to make yourself sound good and your opponent sound silly.)
During both the primaries and the general election, Romney more than anyone else has shown that he understands that the campaign is a game. That game is won by sounding good and saying things that people want to hear. That is by far his best quality as a political candidate.
Obama is lucky that he cannot run his own campaign message that well, and has not done as good of a job promoting himself on the trail.
The debate last night was a great example of why I refuse to vote for Obama and Romney. Those two cut the moderator off countless times in order to squeeze in a couple more attacks on each other, it's ridiculous.
On October 04 2012 23:18 Signet wrote: Romney more than anyone else has shown that he understands that the campaign is a game. That game is won by sounding good and saying things that people want to hear. That is by far his best quality as a political candidate.
If Romney knows that he can win the election by saying things that people want to hear, why does he say such ridiculous things such as the 47% comment, which, while it was supposed to be at a private meeting, doesn't change the fact that the internet will find ANYTHING you say or do. He's really not good at sounding good. Even public statements he's made just show off his incompetence at seeming like a normal person- "some of my best friends own nascar teams-" really, Romney?
I don't have anything huge against Obama, and I'd choose him over Romney any day. Then again, Ron Paul 2012! Lol. I suggest anyone who plans on voting for Romney to think twice about their reasons why. Similarities in political beliefs aren't the only reason you should focus on a candidate, and being part of the same party means nothing, a fact I'm constantly reminding my friends.
he said that because either that's what he honestly believes, a distinct possibility, or it's what that particular group wanted to hear. both depends on the fact that he thought the meeting was private.
it really also illustrates the fact that the rich is very united ideologically while the poor has all sorts of weird ideologies.
On October 04 2012 19:48 rogzardo wrote: Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.
That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.
None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”
In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.
Barack Obama's timid approach to debating—I saw a lot of analogies to a prevent defense in football, but I think it was more like the four corners basketball offense that's so deadly boring it's now against the rules—was the most striking element of tonight's debate, but the most important one is probably that Mitt Romney finally shook the etch-a-sketch tonight and moved to the center.
With the spotlight on and the pressure in place to define his tax plan, Romney angrily denied the existence of any agenda to reduce federal revenue and conceded that political realities mean he may not be able to cut rates by very much consistent with that agenda. Romney swore to defend single-payer health care for everyone born in 1957 or earlier, touted the universal health care initiative he signed in Massachusetts, promised not to cut federal education spending, defended the role of regulation in building an effective market economy, defended the current structure of Social Security, and charged Obama with failure to crack down adequately on big banks.
The problem with all of this is exactly what you'd expect the problem to be with an etch-a-sketch move—it's inconsistent with things he's committed himself to previously.
You can't implement the budget roadmap that Paul Ryan wrote and Mitt Romney endorsed without slashing education spending or gutting federal regulatory agencies. Romney's promised to repeal Obama's efforts to bring Massachusetts-style health care nationwide. In the primaries, Romney ran as a bold tax cutter not a "maybe I'll tinker with the rates if congress wants to" squish. Ryan authored a plan to privatize Social Security and Romney has endorsed similar ideas both in 2004 and in his 2010 book. Romney's been caught on video angrily ranting to financial backers about 47 percent of Americans being moochers and looters, and staged his entire nominating convention as a paen to business owners rather than ordinary people.
Obama wasn't very good at pointing this out tonight. And Romney is nothing if not good at remaking his persona. To be ideologically plastic enough to win a general election in Massachusetts in 2002 and a GOP presidential primary in 2012 is tough. Romney was helped in this by the fact that there was a three-way conspiracy to define "domestic issues" as very narrowly equivalent to tax and budget issues. There was no real talk of the environment, of LGBT equality, of labor unions, of monetary policy, of the regulatory state outside of Dodd-Frank, of immigration, of family life or women's role in the workforce or any of a host of other issues where it's difficult to paper over ideological voids. But on the issues they did talk about, Romney succeeded in portraying himself as someone who's considerably less conservative than John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or the Mitt Romney who we've seen a lot of over the past 18 months. Whether you believe that's the Mitt Romney who'd show up in the White House in 2013 if he wins in November is a separate question, but the guy we saw tonight is a much more appealing figure than the guy who was on the trail all summer.
On October 04 2012 19:48 rogzardo wrote: Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.
That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.
None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”
In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.
Romney definitely came out looking better despite making some really dumb remarks. He was never called out for the $700B from Medicare and "Government take-over of healthcare" lies. His entire blurb about grading schools so parents can pick and choose where to send their kids was just idiotic but it didn't seem to matter much. And clean coal? Come on...
He just really did a good job of getting the last word in and sounding confident. Never really had to defend how he expects to cut taxes, cut the debt, increase defense funding, etc. It's just easy to get away with unsubstantial talking points (Obama did the same thing a few times). I think that's one of the reasons why these debates fail so hard.
Obama stuck to his regular points but was just weak overall. Too many pauses and times where he seemed to be rambling.
I think the expectation of Romney making an idiot out of himself sort of made it easy for him to impress everyone.
On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote: Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post.
I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal.
But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad.
So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...
So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?
Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown.
His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral.
That's about as much detail as you can expect.
The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction.
He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague?
What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics?
And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit?
Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea.
No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office.
On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote: Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post.
I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal.
But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad.
So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...
So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?
Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown.
His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral.
That's about as much detail as you can expect.
The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction.
He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague?
What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics?
And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit?
Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea.
No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office.
romney obviously has a plan. it's called we are open for business. with the amount industry lobby groups and ideological thinktanks producing policy the government only needs to carry out the orders.
EPT
