Presidential debate thread

[Forehead]

I thought Romney sounded better, but I always enjoy when a candidate says they'll reduce the government by attrition, in other words, not backfilling the positions of people who retire. As a Federal worker who is currently doing the job of three people (the other two are on long term medical) I can tell you that such a course of action will backfire, not every federal project is wasteful.

[visionary]

Does Romney's tax plan remind anyone else of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Basically, he doesn't have a ****ing plan, but he hopes you're too dumb to realize it.

Kind of like Kerry's plan for Iraq in 2004.
(although I do like Kerry a lot more in retrospect)

[NLC1054]

I think the biggest thing liberals will be annoyed at is that Obama (though he did look visibly annoyed at times and did at one point audibly say "no" while Mitt Romney was lying about the whole "elected board in charge of your health care" thing) didn't just straight out right call Romney on his bull****.

I think Obama, in his sort of practice, thoughtful way, did come right out and explain how Mitt Romney was lying or stretching the truth, but he never said "you are not telling the truth."

Obama went facts and substance.
Mitt Romney went style over substance.

At any rate, Joe Biden don't play that **** so we'll see how Paul Ryan does against Joe next week. And we'll see how Mitt Romney does in the town hall setting in a few weeks.

Don't think it was a game changer, but it should give Mitt a modest bump. He did what he was supposed to do---show he's not totally a robot.

[Wrong Direction]

Does Romney's tax plan remind anyone else of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Basically, he doesn't have a ****ing plan, but he hopes you're too dumb to realize it.

And that BS about Romney refusing to disclose the details so he preserves flexibility to negotiate with Dems is garbage. If he's so committed to preserving flexibility, why did he sign a pledge refusing to increase taxes under ANY circumstances whatsoever?

Romney can easily tweak his tax plan to make the numbers add up. Money is fungible. Just because one analysis acts like they've considered every option doesn't mean they have. For example, if Romney lowers the tax rate for the top earners from 35 to 27 instead of 25 (or whatever the exact numbers are), what does that do to the overall math? It's still a cut and politically he could definitely maintain his cred with the right if he did it.

Bottom line is that Romney has been saying his tax cut will be revenue neutral for more than a year.

[Rdskns2000]

Did Romney win the debate? Absolutely. Was it a game changer? That is the republican in you speaking. Obama can make a recovery from this, albeit not as easy as some may want it to be, but this was hardly a haymaker. Obama has to make sure that all aspects of the presidency is covered in the next debate. I'm not sure if this debate was suppose to be only about economy but it worked well into Romney's favor. Jim had no balls as a moderator. Jim was Romney's biggest ally in this victory. Part of me wonders also...how could the POTUS be this unprepared. If he tries well in the next debates, the contrast will be very vivid, maybe he's waiting to show his best stuff? I'm not sure that is the best way to win a presidency but it was surprising how lack luster Obama was early on.

First debate is economy. 2nd debate is town hall debate. 3rd debate is foreign policy.

[Wrong Direction]

First debate is economy. 2nd debate is town hall debate. 3rd debate is foreign policy.

Town hall is where 47%, birth control, gay marriage, etc will come up.

[Prosperity]

Romney was full of **** and that visibly annoyed Obama, he's no Clinton and couldn't succinctly point it out, but in the end it won't matter much, these debates never do

[visionary]

I think the biggest thing liberals will be annoyed at is that Obama (though he did look visibly annoyed at times and did at one point audibly say "no" while Mitt Romney was lying about the whole "elected board in charge of your health care" thing) didn't just straight out right call Romney on his bull****.

I think Obama, in his sort of practice, thoughtful way, did come right out and explain how Mitt Romney was lying or stretching the truth, but he never said "you are not telling the truth."

Obama went facts and substance.

I think the problem with Obama was that he sounded confused and stumbled a lot of the time, making way too many vocal fillers though maybe less so at the end.

[baegopa]

[chipwhich]

But when Clinton raised taxes, it did help balance the budget. Bush Jr. got the benefit of a bubble as well, but since he had cut taxes, the real estate boom in the mid-2000s did very little to balance the budget.

No Clinton raising taxes wasn't the reason our economy rocked. It was the .com boom. Maybe you aren't familiar with that boom and why it helped economy.

[DjTj]

Romney can easily tweak his tax plan to make the numbers add up. Money is fungible. Just because one analysis acts like they've considered every option doesn't mean they have. For example, if Romney lowers the tax rate for the top earners from 35 to 27 instead of 25 (or whatever the exact numbers are), what does that do to the overall math? It's still a cut and politically he could definitely maintain his cred with the right if he did it.

Bottom line is that Romney has been saying his tax cut will be revenue neutral for more than a year.

I'm pretty sure that Obamacare was supposed to be revenue neutral.

Calling something revenue neutral is the biggest lie going in politics today.

[stevemcqueen1]

Does Romney's tax plan remind anyone else of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Basically, he doesn't have a ****ing plan, but he hopes you're too dumb to realize it.

And that BS about Romney refusing to disclose the details so he preserves flexibility to negotiate with Dems is garbage. If he's so committed to preserving flexibility, why did he sign a pledge refusing to increase taxes under ANY circumstances whatsoever?

Absolutely.

I don't follow the politics of the election super closely and am not as informed as many, but it seemed obvious to me Romney has no plan. I'll repeal Dodd-Frank. I'll repeal Obamacare. I'll cut taxes but raise revenue by closing those silly loopholes in the tax code. I'll grow the economy. I'll work with democrats on day one for bipartisan solutions. (I just have no ****ing clue how I'm going to do all of that, and hope you all don't realize that)

But I suppose that, since I remembered those specific messages, Romney accomplished his goal. Too bad I also observed he's a shameless liar. Or startingly and dangerously naive. Or both.

[DjTj]

No Clinton raising taxes wasn't the reason our economy rocked. It was the .com boom. Maybe you aren't familiar with that boom and why it helped economy.

Yes, I agree that the boom was the reason the economy grew. But the reason that the budget was balanced was because of the internet boom and the fact that Clinton had raised taxes. Growing economy + reasonable tax rates = balanced budget.

We also had a boom During the Bush administration. But since we had cut taxes so dramatically, the improved economy did not result in a proportional increase in tax revenue. Growing economy + low taxes = continued deficits.

We can't just cut taxes all the time. We will never balance the budget if we just keep cutting taxes. Raise taxes and cut spending, and when the economy gets better, that will help us balance the budget.

[stevemcqueen1]

I think the problem with Obama was that he sounded confused and stumbled a lot of the time, making way too many vocal fillers though maybe less so at the end.

Obama has always spoken like this. Remember all of the Republican talk about how stupid Obama must be early in his presidency because of how often he pauses and uses vocal fillers in his responses?

It's actually the sign of a mind working too fast for the mouth to communicate it's ideas. It's a tactic an active mind weighing it's words uses to slow down speech and avoid inaccuracy. It's basically the way a college professor would talk.

That's a turnoff for people apparently.

[chipwhich]

We also had a boom During the Bush administration. But since we had cut taxes so dramatically, the improved economy did not result in a proportional increase in tax revenue. Growing economy + low taxes = continued deficits.

We can't just cut taxes all the time. We will never balance the budget if we just keep cutting taxes. Raise taxes and cut spending, and when the economy gets better, that will help us balance the budget.

Actually we had no boom during Bush anywhere close to Clinton. Not even sniffing it.

We can balance the budget with economic boom, or not balance it with economic fail. Tax policy will NEVER balance a budget.

You create jobs or you don't. Nothing else needs to be said.