PDA

View Full Version : Last Night's Debate.......



road kill
10-04-2012, 06:19 AM
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Emporer has no clothes.

Even Chris Matthews is distraught..............
Bill Mahar caved...........

They now see Obama for what he is, not what the "HOPED" he was.


Romney DISMANTLED Obama during this debate.
I don't know what will happen in the election, but last night belongs to Romney.

"Trickle down Government!!"
Historical.................

The "unfiltered" Romney vs. the "unfiltered" Obama.

You saw it..................

Jacob Hawkes
10-04-2012, 06:22 AM
Debate hell. That was a debacle.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 07:52 AM
I watched the CNN post-debate discussions, and their poll and local (Colorado) focus group results. CNN's phone poll of registered voters who watched the debate (weighted slightly in favor of R's in the sample), was 67% Romney won; 25% Obama won. Far in excess of the sample difference. One of their panel said it was really unusual for a challenger to out-rank an incumbent by as much as 50%.

In the focus group, while 16 agreed that Romney won the debate hands down (5 said Obama won), 8 changed their voting tendency TO Romney, but 8 turned TO Obama. I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.

This AM I watched the Fox focus group results ... while some called Romney energized, passionate and confident, one woman called him "insincere" and one of the men called him "well-coached" (it sounded like he meant that in a negative way).

Romney did a good job of refuting Obama allegations that were not true ... just a facade of talking points.

I also caught the "trickle down govt" phrase. Surprised that more of the analysts haven't replayed that moment.

However, Romney had one moment that I thought was a real zinger. When Obama repeated the $5 trillion tax cut accusation (after Romney had already responded earlier to that), Romney's reply about how his kids used the ploy of repeating something over and over in the hopes that he would believe them :-) Anyone who's raised even one kid knows what he's talking about :-)

Axlerod later insisted the $5/$2 trillion numbers were accurate. I think that might be true if one didn't get any economic growth as a result of the lower taxes. We do know that when Reagan did that in the midst of a serious recession, economic growth did occur.

Analysts basically said Obama wasn't playing his "A game". I think it would have been worse if he had. I think Obama would have continued to do the repetition thing & that might have hurt him worse.

Obama is not going to be as easy to best in the second debate, IMO. He's going to be better prepared. Some remarked that Obama looked stunned that anyone would refute his statements. I also agreed with the analysts that Obama looked, at various times, angry, tired, stymied by facts thrown at him, like he didn't want to be there, Fact-checkers weren't sure about Romney's statement about $90 billion in "subsidies" given to green energy, but Obama did not have any facts at hand to deflect the charge.

Romney did clarify that not all the oil subsidies were going to the big players in the oil industry, but he did put those on the table for cuts as well.

I became really annoyed with them harping on Romney not giving specifics ... what kind of specifics did Obama offer when he was elected in 2008? The naive ones he had given: cut the deficit in half; keep unemployment below 8% ... were the ones he couldn't deliver. Romney responded to that accusation well: That he has laid out the principles and he would work with both sides of the aisle to come up with the best solutions based on those principles. He would NOT hit over the head with "my way or the highway." Then he emphasized his WEEKLY meeting with legislative leaders during his governorship in MA (quite different from Obama's infrequent meetings even with his own cabinet, Jobs Council, and intel briefers). In fact, what specifics does Obama have this time? More of what he's already done? Nothing new or insightful, He offered: hire 100,000 more teachers nationwide; more training programs cooperating with community colleges; "invest" in education; implementing new sources of energy. Anything new there?

Romney mentioned, but skimmed over a cogent point ... if Obama believes in reforming the tax code, why has he done nothing about it in four years? The same goes for immigration reform.

The CNN fact checkers of also drew attention to the fact that NET private sector job gains in 4 years was only about 125,000. As I recall, the economy needs about that many jobs created in ONE MONTH to maintain reasonable employment levels. They also drew attention to the fact that the jobs gained were lower-paying jobs (which might mean part-time jobs as well as full-time).



Was talking to my neighbor the other night ... an Obama supporter who had a negative feeling about Romney. She had not watched the primary debates. She did not know about the revelations of the administration ignoring the warnings given in Libya & the obfuscation about the stupid video. She also seemed to have no knowledge of the snide Obama ads that called Romney a murderer and the charge of being a felon WRT Bain Capital. She did say, however, that she was going to watch the Presidential debates. So, for some Obama supporters, like her, this is the first time that they would see who Romney is and how he operates under pressure.

But Romney will not win votes from one debate ... he will need to be as strong showings in ALL the debates.

Surprise this AM, AARP said they want to remain "neutral" in the campaign. I guess they want to make sure they are not associated with a losing candidate. AARP may be getting some flak from their membership?

road kill
10-04-2012, 08:01 AM
The best point of the night (which you will never hear in the media) was the Obama criticism of the $2.6 billion tax breaks for "BIG OIL!!!"\

Refuted by Romney due to Obama's $80 billion + tax breaks for "GREEN ENERGY" FAILURES!!!!

Obama had NO response!!!

huntinman
10-04-2012, 08:04 AM
The best point of the night (which you will never hear in the media) was the Obama criticism of the $2.6 billion tax breaks for "BIG OIL!!!"\

Refuted by Romney due to Obama's $80 billion + tax breaks for "GREEN ENERGY" FAILURES!!!!

Obama had NO response!!!

Yes... Romney said Obama doesn't pick winners and losers.... He just picks Losers!!!

Jim Danis
10-04-2012, 08:11 AM
That was one of the best points Romney made during the debate. Quite a few times Romney's clarifications and/or counterpoints left Obama speechless. James Carvelle said Romney came to the debate with a chanisaw and Obama got in the way of it.

Dustin D
10-04-2012, 08:15 AM
When I turned it on last night Obama was talking.

Within 20 seconds of hearing him speak I knew without a DOUBT, he was NOT speaking from a Teleprompter. He did not sound like the well spoken speech 'READER' that has been talking over the last 4 years.

That should tell you how the debate went.

Unhinged from his tele strings and ear piece, he's a hollow shell that can only muddy the waters with unintelligent babble.

While listening to him 'Talk' I could NOT make out what he was saying. It was like walking into a Class and the Professor is speaking some language I'm there to learn but class is almost over. I listened HARD to try and hear what he was saying, but could only do just that. Hear. After 30 seconds of hearing him, I found myself saying, What the HECK is he trying to say!? Completely confusing, maybe that's the point.

However I did completely understand Romney when he spoke. I didn't have to decipher his sentences nor wonder what he was trying to say.

BonMallari
10-04-2012, 08:41 AM
last night debate could be summed up like this

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u192/Mirus_Alexander/These%20are%20Gone%20Now/2006/Foldinglawnchair01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JafTx/Marten-Baas-melting-chair-_zps0fa21b68.jpg

M&K's Retrievers
10-04-2012, 08:56 AM
We listened to the debate on the radio driving home from Dallas. It was clear to us without any visual support that Romney took it to Obama. At home later I watched the debate. Adding the visual to the audio made Obama come across even worse. It's hard to stick your nose in the air when you are staring at the floor. Almost looked like he was ashamed but I know he isn't.

gman0046
10-04-2012, 08:58 AM
Romney exposed a failed president plain and simple. Obongolo was incoherent without reciting other peoples prepared speeches from a teleprompter. Next debate should be even easier for Romney. How can Obongolo even try to defend lying to the American people over the Libya affair and the demonstrations against the U.S. by muslims? Lets face it folks FOUR Americans died in the Libyan attack. Lets take back our country and send the impostor back to Africa where he belongs.

Ken Bora
10-04-2012, 09:36 AM
....... James Carvelle said Romney came to the debate with a chanisaw and Obama got in the way of it.

may I have a turn?

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/255555_366418046773434_100157302_n.jpg

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 09:37 AM
last night debate could be summed up like this

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u192/Mirus_Alexander/These%20are%20Gone%20Now/2006/Foldinglawnchair01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JafTx/Marten-Baas-melting-chair-_zps0fa21b68.jpg

It's kind of ironic, isn't it, that Eastwood's imagery turns out to be so potent so long after the fact. Were it not for the Obama ads, one would already have forgotten what Clinton said at the DNC ... but if you show somebody and empty chair they immediately connect the dots to Eastwood's speech at the RNC?

When I listened to Eastwood, I was sort of scratching my head to figure out if he was just a rambling, old guy. Back then some pundits said the ad-lib speech was genius ... I'm beginning to believe Eastwood is a wily old guy. He left an "image" that people continue to remember.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 09:40 AM
It's kind of ironic, isn't it, that Eastwood's imagery turns out to be so potent so long after the fact. Were it not for the Obama ads, one would already have forgotten what Clinton said at the DNC ... but if you show somebody and empty chair they immediately connect the dots to Eastwood's speech at the RNC?

When I listened to Eastwood, I was sort of scratching my head to figure out if he was just a rambling, old guy. Back then some pundits said the ad-lib speech was genius ... I'm beginning to believe Eastwood is a wily old guy. He left an "image" that people continue to remember.

I agree to an extent... however with me it's to the point I don't even think of Clint any more when I see an empty chair... I think of our pathetic failure of a president...

ppro
10-04-2012, 09:45 AM
In last night's debate Obama said that there is a loophole that gives companies incentives when they ship jobs overseas. Romney said he has been in business over 25 years and never heard of that. My question to Obama is why didn't you do something about it. He acts like he was not in office for the last 4 years. He just campaigns like he will fix other people's mistakes.

kjrice
10-04-2012, 09:46 AM
The best point of the night (which you will never hear in the media) was the Obama criticism of the $2.6 billion tax breaks for "BIG OIL!!!"\

Refuted by Romney due to Obama's $80 billion + tax breaks for "GREEN ENERGY" FAILURES!!!!

Obama had NO response!!!

"...like Solyndra and the others that contributed to your campaign." %%^&%* hilarious as Obama had no reply and shrugged.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 09:52 AM
I thought Romney won. I am not sure what happened to Obamab, but he didn't show up as forceful as I thought he would. That being said, I was disappointed with the debate as a whole. I thought it was a pretty boring. I dont' think either one really said anything new. It left me with more questions than it answered.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 09:54 AM
This picture pretty much sums it up...

9117

road kill
10-04-2012, 10:01 AM
I thought Romney won. I am not sure what happened to Obamab, but he didn't show up as forceful as I thought he would. That being said, I was disappointed with the debate as a whole. I thought it was a pretty boring. I dont' think either one really said anything new. It left me with more questions than it answered.

So, you have heard "trickle down government" before?

zeus3925
10-04-2012, 10:03 AM
Although I slant the other way, I have to say Romney took the debate. But, I think there is more substance out of my kennel run when Titan and Zeus get into a debate. (Actually, Zeus, says he is running for Congress. His slogan is "Put a dog in the house.")

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:07 AM
So, you have heard "trickle down government" before?

How about when Lehrer asked Obama what he thought about trickle down economics and Obama said "uh" and changed the subject to education and teachers or some such!!

Ken Bora
10-04-2012, 10:08 AM
This picture pretty much sums it up...

9117


gosh she looks so happy!

kjrice
10-04-2012, 10:18 AM
Laughed my ass off when Romney said with the $90B Obama gave in tax breaks to "clean power" ,which he said that Obama has done nothing but pick the losers, said he could fund 100 million of the new teachers he (Obama) is proposing.

gmhr1
10-04-2012, 10:19 AM
Next debate is on foreign policy by the time that takes place more Libya news will be out . Obama hasn't done a great job in that area either.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:20 AM
Next debate is on foreign policy by the time that takes place more Libya news will be out . Obama hasn't done a great job in that area either.

No, but he might go bomb somebody between now and then after last night...

Ken Bora
10-04-2012, 10:25 AM
Next debate is on foreign policy by the time that takes place more Libya news will be out . Obama hasn't done a great job in that area either.


when, in that next one. The President takes full credit for the Bin Ladin death (and he will) Mitt should say "You didnt do that. Somebody else did it for you"

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:26 AM
I'll bet instead of going out for their anniversary dinner, Moochelle probably made the preezy eat the new school food last night...

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 10:27 AM
So, you have heard "trickle down government" before?

No, but the attempt to coin a new catch phrase was not enough to impress me. I was more concerned with specifics, and I didn't get much in the way of specifics.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:28 AM
No, but the attempt to coin a new catch phrase was not enough to impress me. I was more concerned with specifics, and I didn't get much in the way of specifics.

That's what everyone on the losing side has been saying...

M&K's Retrievers
10-04-2012, 10:30 AM
No, but the attempt to coin a new catch phrase was not enough to impress me. I was more concerned with specifics, and I didn't get much in the way of specifics.

How can you get specifics in a timed debate?

road kill
10-04-2012, 10:41 AM
No, but the attempt to coin a new catch phrase was not enough to impress me. I was more concerned with specifics, and I didn't get much in the way of specifics.
Then you were not listening.
Romney was quite specific for the alotted time on his plans for "kick starting" the economy!
I am 100% confident Romney can do what he said.
I am equally convinced Obama can not!

You know what, so are you!;-)

gmhr1
10-04-2012, 10:42 AM
Obama wouldn't stop talking 2 min to answer what a joke he talked forever. He likes to talk and say NOTHING. Romney will tear him up on foreign policy , Libya the attack , the video coverup, Susan Rice, Hillary& Pres lying about what happened than some staff came clean while Pres continued to lie, security being denied after it was asked for investigation FBI still not in there. Osama Bin laden dead, Obama claiming once he took him out terrorism was dead, and he had the nerve last night

Romney cannot get specific about what he will do because Obama will steal his ideas!

Dustin D
10-04-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm sure Team Obama is already making the necessary adjustments for the next debate....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_n7RltmTdk-g/SgKilMTXb3I/AAAAAAAAJHw/EET-g-4om9E/s320/Obama+teleprompter_president.jpg

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:46 AM
Then you were not listening.
Romney was quite specific for the alotted time on his plans for "kick starting" the economy!
I am 100% confident Romney can do what he said.
I am equally convinced Obama can not!

You know what, so are you!;-)

He's had four years to prove it...

Ken Bora
10-04-2012, 10:50 AM
That's what everyone on the losing side has been saying...


Ooo Oooo! Al Gore just 'splained it.....
it was the "mile high" city of Denvers fault for the bad debate.
The president did not have time the to adjust to the altitide that Mitt did.
That guy is a nut!

huntinman
10-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Ooo Oooo! Al Gore just 'splained it.....
it was the "mile high" city of Denvers fault for the bad debate.
The president did not have time the to adjust to the altitide that Mitt did.
That guy is a nut!

ah... the old altitude excuse... Jeez.

JimmyD
10-04-2012, 10:57 AM
umm, and, uh and uh... translation please. Translation - Unprepared, uninformed, out of touch, and in way over his head. YOU'RE FIRED and take the nest of idiots with you

ARay11
10-04-2012, 11:06 AM
obama never had a chance..... global warming had the mile high city tooooo hottt to handle.

gmhr1
10-04-2012, 11:15 AM
In the last four years Obama has spent so much time on late night tv shows and the view he forgot anything he learned. Romney said when he was Governor he had meetings every Monday with Dems and R's Obama skips meetings. Romney is a leader. Obama was his typical self last night he doesn't know anything, he can talk to Whoppie and Joy about the important things he cant talk to Netanyah, he sends Hillary, because when it comes to Leadership he is lost.

HPL
10-04-2012, 11:26 AM
Although I slant the other way, I have to say Romney took the debate. But, I think there is more substance out of my kennel run when Titan and Zeus get into a debate. (Actually, Zeus, says he is running for Congress. His slogan is "Put a dog in the house.")


Why not? We have a jackass in the whitehouse.

HPL
10-04-2012, 11:28 AM
This picture pretty much sums it up...

9117


Man that photo is funny. Seldom seen two folks looking so like they would rather be anywhere else.

gmhr1
10-04-2012, 11:31 AM
Happy Anniversary, the beginning of the END! I wonder if Obama has always been a liar or is it something he learned as Pres. He is talking today and all he can talk about is Romneys 5 trillion dollars is he deaf? He has his teleprompter he gives a great speach he just cant speak for himself.

Buzz
10-04-2012, 11:34 AM
I was shocked to hear that Romney wasn't going to cut my taxes.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 11:53 AM
Then you were not listening.
Romney was quite specific for the alotted time on his plans for "kick starting" the economy!
I am 100% confident Romney can do what he said.
I am equally convinced Obama can not!

You know what, so are you!;-)

I was listening. Romney said he would reduce the deficit by lowering tax rates and eliminating tax credits and loopholes. He said what rate he would reduce business taxes to, but not what he would reduce my rates to. Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar. He eliminated tax credits for interest paid on credit cards, car and boat loans, etc. That translated into a tax increase for people like me. Those that could afford it simply moved to other tax shelters and loopholes, so they weren't really impacted.

Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.

Buzz
10-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.


This is where Obama really let him off the hook. Romney said he won't cut taxes for the rich. He said he won't raise taxes on the struggling middle class. But he kept mentioning "broadening the tax base." This is where Obama could have hit him hard. He could have stated that these are code words for increasing taxes on that 47% he talked about behind closed doors.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 12:00 PM
I was listening. Romney said he would reduce the deficit by lowering tax rates and eliminating tax credits and loopholes. He said what rate he would reduce business taxes to, but not what he would reduce my rates to. Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar. He eliminated tax credits for interest paid on credit cards, car and boat loans, etc. That translated into a tax increase for people like me. Those that could afford it simply moved to other tax shelters and loopholes, so they weren't really impacted.

Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.

Roney said last night, but libs don't want to hear or believe it...

The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...

huntinman
10-04-2012, 12:02 PM
This is where Obama really let him off the hook. Romney said he won't cut taxes for the rich. He said he won't raise taxes on the struggling middle class. But he kept mentioning "broadening the tax base." This is where Obama could have hit him hard. He could have stated that these are code words for increasing taxes on that 47% he talked about behind closed doors.

Obama does not want to bring up old videos... that is a loser for him. Are you kidding? With all the tape surfacing of Obama sounding like the second coming of Malcom X? I hope he brings up old videos...

Buzz
10-04-2012, 12:08 PM
The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...



So what you're saying is:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/Revenue-1.gif

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 12:21 PM
Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar.
Romney proposed a "bucket" of $X (He said the X to be determined). Then everyone gets to deduct up to $X. They get to choose what to put in their bucket: mortgage interest, local taxes, state taxes, etc., but cannot exceed the $X.

He indicated that higher income individuals might have a smaller bucket than the lower income individuals. Perhaps the reasoning there is if you're paying $50,000 in mortgage interest each year, you really don't need more tax relief?

Then one only needs to establish what will be allowed in the "bucket" of deductibles. That will be among the kinds of things that Pres and Congress have to hammer out intelligently.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 12:31 PM
So what you're saying is:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n3/davebezesky/Revenue-1.gif

C'mon, Buzz ... no that's twisting the premise.

Even in Sweden, when they cut spending they were able to lower tax rates ... but it actually increased revenue. The extent to which this premise can continue to work depends on the growth of GDP.

I would imagine that new gas/oil drilling permits being issued on public land would have a big impact on GDP. Keeping in mind that increase in energy production on Obama's watch has only taken place on private land; public land production has decreased.

Crippling coal use before we have something viable to replace it with is not good for the economy either. If you pay more for electricity without having a decent job, where does that leave the 99%.

In fairness, Buzz, if the economy is better in SD than it is in other parts of the country, you may not be close enough to see some of the effects of this administration's policies.

One point I think was GOOD about the debates ... it was about policies, not name-calling. While each of us may feel various videos give insights into the character/beliefs of the candidates, that is not what the debates are supposed to be about. JMHO on that.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 12:37 PM
Roney said last night, but libs don't want to hear or believe it...

The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...

That still doesn't answer my questions. If you believe flood gates are going to open for new jobs just because the tax rate is reduced to 25% from the 28% Obama has proposed, you are kidding yourself. When the Bush era tax reductions went into effect, they were supposed to stimulate job growth. Businesses were going to create more jobs and hire more people. It didn't happen, at least not in this country.

If it works in this case, there will still be a considerable time lapse between when the tax cuts take effect and when new jobs will be created. Where is the revenue going to come from in the meantime? That is why I want to know what tax credits he plans to eliminate. Will it be people like me paying more taxes to make up the shortfall? If so, what happens to my standard of living with less disposable income?

huntinman
10-04-2012, 12:45 PM
That still doesn't answer my questions. If you believe flood gates are going to open for new jobs just because the tax rate is reduced to 25% from the 28% Obama has proposed, you are kidding yourself. When the Bush era tax reductions went into effect, they were supposed to stimulate job growth. Businesses were going to create more jobs and hire more people. It didn't happen, at least not in this country.

If it works in this case, there will still be a considerable time lapse between when the tax cuts take effect and when new jobs will be created. Where is the revenue going to come from in the meantime? That is why I want to know what tax credits he plans to eliminate. Will it be people like me paying more taxes to make up the shortfall? If so, what happens to my standard of living with less disposable income?

You have selective memory about the Bush years. The first 7 years were pretty damn good. The media was going crazy and giving him hell if unemployment got near 5%. The economy was strong... It didn't crash till his last year... Thanks in large part to the folks like Barney Frank.

If you are that antsy for more specifics on Romney's plan... go on his website... it's laid out there... You can take your time and read it thoroughly.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 12:58 PM
Romney proposed a "bucket" of $X (He said the X to be determined). Then everyone gets to deduct up to $X. They get to choose what to put in their bucket: mortgage interest, local taxes, state taxes, etc., but cannot exceed the $X.

He indicated that higher income individuals might have a smaller bucket than the lower income individuals. Perhaps the reasoning there is if you're paying $50,000 in mortgage interest each year, you really don't need more tax relief?

Then one only needs to establish what will be allowed in the "bucket" of deductibles. That will be among the kinds of things that Pres and Congress have to hammer out intelligently.

I heard that, but I would like to know what the "X" is. How much for individuals, and how much for couples? I know he through out $25K and $50k as examples, but I think his original number before the debate was significantly lower. I guess I just don't trust the Gov. to set the limits in my favor if they start off arbitrary and vague.

HPL
10-04-2012, 12:58 PM
That still doesn't answer my questions. If you believe flood gates are going to open for new jobs just because the tax rate is reduced to 25% from the 28% Obama has proposed, you are kidding yourself. When the Bush era tax reductions went into effect, they were supposed to stimulate job growth. Businesses were going to create more jobs and hire more people. It didn't happen, at least not in this country.

If it works in this case, there will still be a considerable time lapse between when the tax cuts take effect and when new jobs will be created. Where is the revenue going to come from in the meantime? That is why I want to know what tax credits he plans to eliminate. Will it be people like me paying more taxes to make up the shortfall? If so, what happens to my standard of living with less disposable income?

I'm not an economist but I believe that the main spur to job creation if Romney gets elected will be the change in perception. Currently, most business owners I know feel that the administration is hostile to business, creating an uncertainty that makes capital investment seem very risky. I believe that the republicans will be viewed as pro-business and will give many business owners the confidence to expand.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 01:01 PM
I heard that, but I would like to know what the "X" is. How much for individuals, and how much for couples? I know he through out $25K and $50k as examples, but I think his original number before the debate was significantly lower. I guess I just don't trust the Gov. to set the limits in my favor if they start off arbitrary and vague.

So, if you don't trust him, vote for the other guy... he's really doing a great job.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 01:05 PM
You have selective memory about the Bush years. The first 7 years were pretty damn good. The media was going crazy and giving him hell if unemployment got near 5%. The economy was strong... It didn't crash till his last year... Thanks in large part to the folks like Barney Frank.

If you are that antsy for more specifics on Romney's plan... go on his website... it's laid out there... You can take your time and read it thoroughly.

Maybe the 1st 7 years were good where you were, but not where I was. I saw things starting to fall apart in 2004. Depending on where you were, unemployment had started to rise, and the housing market began to crash. I know because I moved to avoid losing my job, and I had a heck of a time selling my house.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 01:08 PM
Maybe the 1st 7 years were good where you were, but not where I was. I saw things starting to fall apart in 2004. Depending on where you were, unemployment had started to rise, and the housing market began to crash. I know because I moved to avoid losing my job, and I had a heck of a time selling my house.

The last four years haven't been any bed of roses.

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 01:33 PM
The last four years haven't been any bed of roses.

You're right, but it is better than where we were headed. Forgive me for being a sceptic, but I just don't want to go back to where we were.

kjrice
10-04-2012, 01:35 PM
The tax rate might be lower but with closing deductions and loopholes the return will be less, but to keep the base lower is better to stimulate business. There is no way to generate enough money to effectively pay down the debt through cutting spending alone without being so drastic it will put the economy in a tailspin. The "tax the rich" stuff gets old. That is simply a cozy way to get rates up and then hit the rest because that in itself is not enough "revenue enhancement". Here is some insider stuff that is Obama's gift to the middle class starting January 2013:

Hidden in bills as riders to the American public:

- Home sales fee 3.8%
- Non-eco car sales fee 1.2%
- EPA fee on homes that do not meet the Dems standards BEFORE sale (windows, roofing, hvac, washer/dryer, water heater, water/elec fixtures)
- Private school fee
- Agriculture fees on rancher and farmer (passed to consumer markets)
- Service fees for repair shops, barber shops, ammo, guns, conventions, waste, etc...

The next wave of legislation:
- Fees on 401k, benefits, selling stock, social security, inheritance tax is an additional $5K per $100K.
- ID not needed to vote
- Expand role of President (unlimited - do away with pledge, reduce military, disband USMC, expanded executive powers to override congress and no more budgets.)

Blackstone
10-04-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm not an economist but I believe that the main spur to job creation if Romney gets elected will be the change in perception. Currently, most business owners I know feel that the administration is hostile to business, creating an uncertainty that makes capital investment seem very risky. I believe that the republicans will be viewed as pro-business and will give many business owners the confidence to expand.

I am not an economist either, but I don't know any savvy business people that passed on opportunities to make money for the past 4 years because they were afraid to make an investment. They just made calculated investments. Many businesses have managed to do well over the last 4 years, if they were well run.

In my opinion, the economy will be the biggest factor in determining whether businesses will be successful. Republicans may be viewed as pro-business, but they were also at the helm when the economy began to crash.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 01:52 PM
The tax rate might be lower but with closing deductions and loopholes the return will be less, but to keep the base lower is better to stimulate business. There is no way to generate enough money to effectively pay down the debt through cutting spending alone without being so drastic it will put the economy in a tailspin. The "tax the rich" stuff gets old. That is simply a cozy way to get rates up and then hit the rest because that in itself is not enough "revenue enhancement". Here is some insider stuff that is Obama's gift to the middle class starting January 2013:

Hidden in bills as riders to the American public:

- Home sales fee 3.8%
- Non-eco car sales fee 1.2%
- EPA fee on homes that do not meet the Dems standards BEFORE sale (windows, roofing, hvac, washer/dryer, water heater, water/elec fixtures)
- Private school fee
- Agriculture fees on rancher and farmer (passed to consumer markets)
- Service fees for repair shops, barber shops, ammo, guns, conventions, waste, etc...

The next wave of legislation:
- Fees on 401k, benefits, selling stock, social security, inheritance tax is an additional $5K per $100K.
- ID not needed to vote
- Expand role of President (unlimited - do away with pledge, reduce military, disband USMC, expanded executive powers to override congress and no more budgets.)

He's got that one down already... dems have not had a budget in 3 years.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 01:57 PM
I am not an economist either, but I don't know any savvy business people that passed on opportunities to make money for the past 4 years because they were afraid to make an investment. They just made calculated investments. Many businesses have managed to do well over the last 4 years, if they were well run.

In my opinion, the economy will be the biggest factor in determining whether businesses will be successful. Republicans may be viewed as pro-business, but they were also at the helm when the economy began to crash.

Blackstone, you are a good team player... but I'm not buying what you are selling. (of course you knew that already)It's just the same old Dem talking points. Although you do a much better job presenting them than menmon.

ARay11
10-04-2012, 02:07 PM
I am not an economist either, but I don't know any savvy business people that passed on opportunities to make money for the past 4 years because they were afraid to make an investment. They just made calculated investments. Many businesses have managed to do well over the last 4 years, if they were well run.

In my opinion, the economy will be the biggest factor in determining whether businesses will be successful. Republicans may be viewed as pro-business, but they were also at the helm when the economy began to crash.

I don't either. But, I do know several (yes, several) local businesses here who are very hesitant to hire. In fact, they are running with basically skeleton crews. Why? Uncertainty. Real or perceived.... the bottom line is Uncertainty. What is Obamacare going to cost? How will we handle our increasing portion of the payroll taxes? These are questions I hear asked all the time. And, since they do not have the answer, they are not hiring.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 02:14 PM
Obama looks much more comfortable today...

9129

murral stark
10-04-2012, 05:25 PM
It was pretty clear last night anyway. Romney handed him his arse. He had points laid out very well and stayed on topic. He was not trying to stumble around to find an answer. Obama was lost and did lose last night.

ARay11
10-04-2012, 05:32 PM
This is where Obama really let him off the hook. Romney said he won't cut taxes for the rich. He said he won't raise taxes on the struggling middle class. But he kept mentioning "broadening the tax base." This is where Obama could have hit him hard. He could have stated that these are code words for increasing taxes on that 47% he talked about behind closed doors.

If more people get jobs, and begin paying taxes, doesnt that in itself "broaden the base" ?

gmhr1
10-04-2012, 05:35 PM
People working thats a great idea wonder why Obama didnt think of that! Under this President jobs is a dirty 4 letter word unless your biden than its a 3 letter word.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 05:48 PM
I heard that, but I would like to know what the "X" is. How much for individuals, and how much for couples? I know he through out $25K and $50k as examples, but I think his original number before the debate was significantly lower. I guess I just don't trust the Gov. to set the limits in my favor if they start off arbitrary and vague.

Blackstone, since he emphasized that certain details, of necessity, need to include the legislature, he can outline principles, but not necessarily dictate the amounts or what deductions will be allowed to go in the bucket.

The POTUS has not outlined any tax reform at all ... except for temporarily keeping the Bush tax cuts on all but those earning over $200K. He overlooks the point made by many that many small business owners would fall into the category of $200-$300K, and their income may be on paper after the actual $ has gone back into the business.

What details did we have on Obamacare in campaign 2008? I'd say almost none.

Saw an interesting one-on-one video with one of Romney's economic advisors and Clinton's former Labor Secty. The latter kept saying that Romney hasn't given specifics. The former explained that there were many ways to skin the cat, and it would be a result of bi-partisan effort which way to do so.

Everybody wants specifics from Romney ... nobody ever asked Obama for specifics. Then, when he took office he said it was so much worse than he imagined. Why? He had a bunch of advisors who knew the financial systems first-hand. They should have known. Geithner should have known.

Even now they're not asking for specifics. When talking education, Romney offered school choice and having $ follow the child. Obama did not even respond to that ... O's comments on education were to hire 100,000 teachers and other general "pablum".

In 2008, Obama never explained how he would cut the deficit in half & get unemployment down, yet everyone just "bought it". The same thing is happening now ... he has offered no new approach to what he's done for 4 years past. Business needs something permanent in place to make their 5- and 10-year plans. They can't plan based on temporary goodies.

You were seeing things fall apart in 2004 ... here, the housing boom was just beginning in 2003. It started going south a bit in by the end of 2006. By 2008 it was in free fall. So, different parts of the country seemed to have different timetables.

kjrice
10-04-2012, 06:21 PM
The tax rate might be lower but with closing deductions and loopholes the return will be less, but to keep the base lower is better to stimulate business. There is no way to generate enough money to effectively pay down the debt through cutting spending alone without being so drastic it will put the economy in a tailspin. The "tax the rich" stuff gets old. That is simply a cozy way to get rates up and then hit the rest because that in itself is not enough "revenue enhancement". Here is some insider stuff that is Obama's gift to the middle class starting January 2013:

Hidden in bills as riders to the American public:

- Home sales fee 3.8%
- Non-eco car sales fee 1.2%
- EPA fee on homes that do not meet the Dems standards BEFORE sale (windows, roofing, hvac, washer/dryer, water heater, water/elec fixtures)
- Private school fee
- Agriculture fees on rancher and farmer (passed to consumer markets)
- Service fees for repair shops, barber shops, ammo, guns, conventions, waste, etc...

The next wave of legislation:
- Fees on 401k, benefits, selling stock, social security, inheritance tax is an additional $5K per $100K.
- ID not needed to vote
- Expand role of President (unlimited - do away with pledge, reduce military, disband USMC, expanded executive powers to override congress and no more budgets.)


Since it is not sinking in, I will post again.

helencalif
10-04-2012, 06:45 PM
What does hiring 100,000 more teachers in math and science solve? Will it mean the horrible schools will be better? Right now we have 50% of our college graduates unable to find jobs.

Marvin S
10-04-2012, 07:12 PM
What does hiring 100,000 more teachers in math and science solve? Will it mean the horrible schools will be better? Right now we have 50% of our college graduates unable to find jobs.

Since 1970 the number of staff members serving an 8.5% increase in student population has doubled - we can see the results.

The difference between RMoney & the Kenyan is RMoney is capable of seeing something is not working & attempting to do something about it - the Kenyan is only capable of pandering :(.

Gerry Clinchy
10-04-2012, 07:31 PM
What does hiring 100,000 more teachers in math and science solve? Will it mean the horrible schools will be better? Right now we have 50% of our college graduates unable to find jobs.

Beats me! I figured it was a carrot tossed to teachers who might vote for him ... since there are teachers unemployed, too.

huntinman
10-04-2012, 08:50 PM
It was pretty clear last night anyway. Romney handed him his arse. He had points laid out very well and stayed on topic. He was not trying to stumble around to find an answer. Obama was lost and did lose last night.

Who are you and what have you done with Murral?

murral stark
10-04-2012, 08:59 PM
Who are you and what have you done with Murral?

That's funny right there. The doctor gave me some new medication and I am still disoriented right now.:p

Matt McKenzie
10-04-2012, 10:17 PM
What does hiring 100,000 more teachers in math and science solve? Will it mean the horrible schools will be better? Right now we have 50% of our college graduates unable to find jobs.

50%? That's almost half!

Gerry Clinchy
10-06-2012, 07:55 PM
Oh, my ... The New Yorker, no less. Clint must be chuckling.

http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/dv1/public/newyorkercovercropped.jpg

Gerry Clinchy
10-08-2012, 09:48 PM
Turns out that Romney's tax cut could actually turn out to result in $12 billion additional revenue if Obamacare is repealed.

Yet the Dems continue to say "he lied". Sort of reminds me of the Libya routine ... just keep repeating something that isn't true until it all fades away?

Word is that Obama will study hard for the next debate ... and that Biden is doing the same for the Ryan debate. Joe will probably throw everything but the kitchen sink at Ryan, whether any of it is true or not. Joe better be careful not to get too carried away, he might find it hard to walk off the stage with both feet in his mouth.

Marvin S
10-08-2012, 09:58 PM
Turns out that Romney's tax cut could actually turn out to result in $12 billion additional revenue if Obamacare is repealed.

Yet the Dems continue to say "he lied". Sort of reminds me of the Libya routine ... just keep repeating something that isn't true until it all fades away?

Word is that Obama will study hard for the next debate ... and that Biden is doing the same for the Ryan debate. Joe will probably throw everything but the kitchen sink at Ryan, whether any of it is true or not. Joe better be careful not to get too carried away, he might find it hard to walk off the stage with both feet in his mouth.

It will be interesting to see the POTUS present his "A" game :). Is it possible to walk with both feet in your mouth :cool: ?

gmhr1
10-09-2012, 09:39 AM
The Princeton Economics Prof that Obama is using as a source that Romneys math doesnt add up said thats not true Romneys plan does work and he never said that .