Presidential debate thread

[Duckus]

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?

Also, I'm not knowledgable enough to go through every point that GHH posted, but some of them seem kind of silly to me.

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.

That is not silly. It was a huge lie that Romney repeated for over 30 minutes straight.
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...

1) 5 trillion over 10 years is not insignificant. It is enormous.

2) Romney has spent MONTHS talking about this tax plan. Suddenly . . . during the debate - POOF. Gone. No more 5 trillion tax cut. Now an imaginary, secret plan, that would do the same things but simply not cost anything. It is actually hard to prepare for a debate in which your opponent can simply make anything up.

From Forbes Magazine:

Okay. Now we know that Gov. Romney’s tax plan does not call for a $5 trillion tax cut. Which means that we now officially know nothing at all about Mitt Romney’s tax plan.

Previously, Governor Romney has said that his tax plan would cut all individual income tax rates by 20%, eliminate the AMT, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would also extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Those tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by $480 billion in 2015 over and above the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts. Allow for some growth in income, and the total comes to over $5 trillion over ten years.

Gov. Romney also has a super-secret plan to close loopholes and deductions on high-income taxpayers to make up the lost revenue without raising taxes on low- and middle-income households. Efforts by the Tax Policy Center to test whether such a plan might exist have been met with furious criticism from the Romney campaign and its allies, Through several iterations, the critique has been: (1) that’s not our plan, and (2) we won’t tell you what the plan actually is.

On Tuesday, there was a hint of specificity. Governor Romney floated a trial balloon: he’d pay for his tax cuts by capping deductions at $17,000. As I pointed out yesterday, that plan probably doesn’t work either in the sense that it will (a) either add to the deficit, or (b) raise taxes on middle-income households, both of which the Romney camp has strenuously disavowed. Of course, it’s hard to tell what that plan would or would not do because again there are no details. I assume that if the TPC tried to analyze it, Romney would reply that (1) that’s not our plan, and (2) we won’t tell you what the plan actually is.

In fact, it’s pretty clear that even Gov. Romney doesn’t know what this incarnation of his secret plan is.

More at the link - http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardb...llion-tax-cut/

[skinsfan07]

GHH with the "slam bam, thank you mam" article. Good stuff.

[DaveMason]

1) 5 trillion over 10 years is not insignificant. It is enormous.

I agree. I'm just saying...if Romney is looking at--I don't know, a two-year or four-year outlook regarding his tax plan, then he probably doesn't have the "5 trillion" number on his mind. So when Obama brings up in the debate that Romney is cutting 5 trillion in taxes, Romney's reaction is "huh? I don't have anything on that scale". To which Obama should have clarified: "yes you do. Your plan specifically calls for $480 billion in tax cuts by 2015. Multiply it by 10 years...by 2025, you'll have cut nearly 5 trillion dollars!"

I'm not ready to call it a lie. Unless Romney himself previously promoted the plan as cutting 5 trillion. (And for all I know, he very well may have. I don't follow politics on anything more than a superficial level.)

One other probably-way-misinformed point:

People are saying "you can't make up for these tax cuts by reducing deductions!". I don't know what to believe. For a long while, I've been hearing that the biggest corporations end up paying near-zero taxes due to loopholes and deductions. Seems to me that if we get these big corporations to pay their fair share by closing loopholes, we'd have more revenue.

But I'm not sure if the "major coprorations pay zero taxes" was factual or if it was just one of those goofy "rile up the Occupy Wall St crowd" viral images that have no basis in reality.

So basically what I'm saying is, I know jack and shouldn't even be posting in this thread. I do like both candidates though. I think they are both good, honorable men and I will be happy no matter which one wins.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

GHH with the "slam bam, thank you mam" article. Good stuff.

Sadly, the average, boneheaded Fox News conditioned American (no offense to your fellow Countrymen and woman); go on perception and not fact as Bang mentioned. The mere fact that a candidate TOTALLY went against everything he's been running with and changed tact during a live, Nationwide debate should of been an eye opener enough for the electorate, never mind the lies therein. But sadly the above mentioned average American voter will only open their eyes to how something, or in this case someone, looks. To quote Bang, no substance. Like here in England in a lot of ways. A false, plastic, image absorbed society.

And being as the President didn't stoop to pulling Romney and calling him an outright liar on point after point to save from argument; Romney's the one who comes out with plus points to the image orientated public.

I fully expect Barack to kick his ass all over the floor in the next one. I just hope he hasn't done enough self damage by being the consummate professional and not getting into a slanging match on this. (Maybe the wrong approach all things considered, but still commendable. He'll get his shot to do that the right way next time out.).

Because as an outsider looking in, if you don't return the present incumbent back to the White House, you will become the laughing stock of most of the rest of the World.

If you think Bush Jnr tarnished your World wide reputation, sit back and watch a REAL master at work if Romney takes power.

Hail.

[alexey]

Promise great outcomes and do not talk about specifics. That's an ingenious way to avoid fact checkers.

"No economist can say that I'm wrong if I say that I'm right and not give any specifics"

Brilliant.

---------- Post added October-5th-2012 at 03:44 PM ----------

The strange thing is that I really have no idea what Romney actually plans to do, and I do not think that I am alone. I see something between these two extremes:

1) Pragmatic approach to doing what works for long term benefit and stability of the nation; charting a balanced path between Democrats and Republicans.

2) Completely selling out everything that he can to his friends and people with similar interests.

[Wrong Direction]

Moveon.org is the one with serious truth problems. Since people seem to like this article, I'll give this a shot:

1)A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

Those Republicans and their math!

The problem here is that Romney has always said he'll get rid of deductions to pay for his cuts. He's said this his entire campaign. It's true that he hasn't told everyone what deductions, so he's left himself open to scrutiny, but $5 trillion is only true if he gets rid of no deductions at all. So, the $5 trillion number is only half of the story, and the TPC has since acknowledged that it could be revenue neutral with some different assumptions. Even with their original assumptions, they find something like an $86 billion/year shortfall, much less than $480 billion/year.

2) If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

Ahem. There certainly are enough deductions. This article talks about a few examples that could show how Romney could more than pay for his tax cuts:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_653485.html

3)This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

Here, Moveon is sort of right, but they failed to mention that Romney corrected himself and added nearly. So they misquoted him. I'm sure that was on accident.

4)Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

I'd like to see a source for that estimate. Here's what Romney says in his plan published last year:
http://www.mittromney.com/sites/defa...rowth-Full.pdf

The United States currently operates under what is known as a “worldwide” tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U.S. rate regardless of whether the income is earned within American borders or overseas. Under this collection method, American companies pay the corporate tax in the host country, and when profits are repatriated back to the United States, the company pays the difference between what was paid to the host country and what would have been owed under the U.S. rate. Given our higher rates, the effect of this is to penalize those U.S. corporations that bring their foreign profits home to invest in the United States.
...
Romney supports the recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission to make the switch to a territorial system. This would enhance the ability of our corporations to compete around the world and would end the perverse incentives that keep companies from repatriating profits to the United States. Domestic companies that can compete vigorously abroad are in a better position to grow and create jobs at home. Complex technical issues will arise during the transition: amendments to the tax code need to be crafted in a way that does not encourage corporations to game the system and export jobs or to move their U.S. headquarters abroad. With proper draftsmanship, these potential hazards can be overcome. A territorial system must be designed to encourage the creation of jobs in the United States, not to outsource them.

5) There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

Move on is just lying here. First, 4 million people will be kicked out of Medicare advantage due to those cuts. Second, the actuary of Medicare estimates that 15% of hospitals will stop participating. Third, Ryan's budget is not part of Romney's plan.

6) Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase,

Move on conveniently forgets that Romney indicated, in this debate, a willingness to keep these small provisions.

2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program,

False. MA has open enrollment and minimum coverage/provider network standards and is subject to audit, quality measures and quality based payments. They would be in no position to cherry pick. Also, the premium analysis was based on an earlier iteration of Ryan's plan, not this year's version of Ryan's plan supported by D Ron Wyden.

3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

It caps federal increases to Medicaid spending. So, instead of giving states a blank check, this gives states a budget. There is no evidence anywhere that says Romney wants to increase cost sharing in Medicaid. None, even though he should.

7) Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

I'm not sure here whether Move on is ignorant or just wrong, but nobody has said we want to get rid of regulation altogether. It's just false.

8) The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

I don't know this law, but Romney said more than this as I outlined several pages back. Move on is, at best, giving half the story here.

9) Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

On net, he lowered taxes in Mass. Maybe there's a distinction somewhere between taxes/fees, I'm not sure.

10)Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

On Romney's site, it says this:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

•Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment

The left wants to make it out like Romney wants to just forget about sick people. I'll add some definitions:

High Risk Pools are heavily subsidized insurance plans for people with certain conditions.
Reinsurance is a process whereby in this case sick people get assistance with cost sharing after they reach a certain cost threshold.
Risk Adjustment is a subsidy paid to insurance companies so they can offer comprehensive insurance to all people. For healthy enrollees, insurance companies receive nothing. For sick people, they receive a payment based on the average costs across the system for people with the health profile in that plan.

Long story short, Romney's plan includes subsidies for sick people.

[NLC1054]

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?

Because then the debate would devolve into a bunch of he said-she said bull**** about who is and isn't lying, which would've played right into Mitt's hands.

Mitt Romney's gameplan, basically, is to lie about every major position he's held, while confusing and dilluting the President's message. The whole "why didn't call him a liar" thing" bugs me, because I kept watching Mitt Romney lie, and then Obama essentially going through and explaining how what Romney said wasn't true.

But because he didn't straight up say "you're lying!" people say he came across weak and let Romney walk all over him.

Romney went style over substance, and it worked.

And technically, at least sometimes, the moderator speaks up and points out the factual inconsistencies in someone's argument.

[Wrong Direction]

To quote Bang, no substance. Like here in England in a lot of ways. A false, plastic, image absorbed society.

And being as the President didn't stoop to pulling Romney and calling him an outright liar on point after point to save from argument; Romney's the one who comes out with plus points to the image orientated public.

I fully expect Barack to kick his ass all over the floor in the next one.

I have a recommendation for you and all the other people who think Romney won because of looks, posture, and lies. You might want to start varying where you get your news from. If you think Obama is going to boot his rear in the next debate, you're setting yourself up for another letdown.

Obama has never been a good debater, Romney has, and Ryan is the best (which you'll see soon).

The real truth is that the biggest lie in the last debate was Obama's $5 trillion doozy. It's true that Romney hasn't outlined which deductions he'd cut, but it's absolutely false that it can't be done and it's false that Romney is portraying to everyone that he'll cut $5 trillion without any offsets. Totall false.

[alexey]

...
The real truth is that the biggest lie in the last debate was Obama's $5 trillion doozy. It's true that Romney hasn't outlined which deductions he'd cut, but it's absolutely false that it can't be done and it's false that Romney is portraying to everyone that he'll cut $5 trillion without any offsets. Totall false.

Do you know what Romney is actually planning to do if elected?

Here is his 5 point "plan"

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

o Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.
o In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.


Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

o Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.
o Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.


Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

o Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.
o Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.


Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

o Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.
o 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, patient-centered health care reform.

Is this sufficient level of detail for you?

[alexey]

double post

[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, patient-centered health care reform.

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/defa...rowth-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/defa...rowth-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/defa...rowth-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/defa...rowth-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