is it really that hard to understand?

conservatives don't really give a fuck what he says

he's not the other guy

10/4/2012 11:06:35 AM

It's hard for me to understand how Obama "lost" when at one point he clearly and calmly laid out that what Romney is saying just doesn't add up, and Romney could not defend it.

10/4/2012 11:08:40 AM

10/4/2012 11:09:25 AM

Quote :

"Just so we are clear there is absolutely no chance that obama wins NC"

So by that logic, he shouldn't have won NC last election . . . but he did.

I also find it very interesting that Obama's demeanor was so off-key that it is the primary focus of post-debate discussions as opposed to Romney, who basically contradicted everything he had been campaigning for this entire election cycle. Either he A) flip-flopped and changed his views right before the debate or B) told bold-faced lies.

'A' is definitely better than 'B', but I honestly have to take everything he says with a grain of salt at this point.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2012 11:13:06 AM

people love to dog on Mitt, but BO has a problem distorting figures.

ABC news fact check:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/politics&id=8835141&rss=rss-wtvd-article-8835141&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Quote :

" CALVIN WOODWARD WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spun one-sided stories in their first presidential debate, not necessarily bogus, but not the whole truth. Here's a look at some of their claims and how they stack up with the facts: OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue." THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those "cuts" away and Obama's $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases. Obama's February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects. ROMNEY on cutting the deficit: "Obamacare's on my list. ... I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. ... I'll make government more efficient." THE FACTS: Romney has promised to balance the budget in eight years to 10 years, but he hasn't offered a complete plan. Instead, he's promised a set of principles, some of which - like increasing Pentagon spending and restoring more than $700 billion in cuts that Democrats made in Medicare over the coming decade - work against his goal. He also has said he will not consider tax increases. He pledges to shrink the government to 20 percent of the size of the economy, as opposed to more than 23 percent of gross domestic product now, by the end of his first term. The Romney campaign estimates that would require cuts of $500 billion from the 2016 budget alone. He also has pledged to cut tax rates by 20 percent, paying for them by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthiest and through economic growth. To fulfill his promise, then, Romney would require cuts to other programs so deep - under one calculation requiring cutting many areas of the domestic budget by one-third within four years - that they could never get through Congress. Cuts to domestic agencies would have to be particularly deep. But he's offered only a few modest examples of government programs he'd be willing to squeeze, like subsidies to PBS and Amtrak. He does want to repeal Obama's big health care law, but that law is actually forecast to reduce the deficit. OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut - on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another trillion dollars - and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign." THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan. Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner. The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates. ROMNEY: Obama's health care plan "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea." THE FACTS: Romney is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of experts that would have the power to force Medicare cuts if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. But Obama's health care law explicitly explicitly prohibits the board from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe. Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels." The board has yet to be named, and its members would ultimately have to be confirmed by the Senate. Health care inflation has been modest in the last few years, so cuts would be unlikely for most of the rest of this decade. OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America." THE FACTS: This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money, so stopping them doesn't create a new pool of available cash that can be used for something else, like rebuilding America. It just slows down the government's borrowing. ROMNEY: "At the same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric rates are up." THE FACTS: He's right that the average price has doubled, and a little more, since Obama was sworn in. But presidents have almost no influence on gasoline prices, and certainly not in the near term. Gasoline prices are set on financial exchanges around the world and are based on a host of factors, most importantly the price of crude oil used to make gasoline, the amount of finished gasoline ready to be shipped and the capacity of refiners to make enough to meet market demand. Retail electricity prices have risen since Obama took office - barely. They've grown by an average of less than 1 percent per year, less than the rate of inflation and slower than the historical growth in electricity prices. The unexpectedly modest rise in electricity prices is because of the plummeting cost of natural gas, which is used to generate electricity. OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more." THE FACTS: That's just one scenario. Obama's claim relies on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. The study, however, is more nuanced than Obama indicated. The study concludes it would be impossible for Romney to meet all of his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people who make more than $200,000 to people who make less. In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a $2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have children. Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation. Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher, Jonathan Fahey and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report."

10/4/2012 11:17:21 AM

There's a40 something percent chance now NC will go democrat again.

10/4/2012 11:18:52 AM

Nc went democrat because it was cool to vote for the black guy, country had bush fatigue, candidate was older than dirt, and VP was unintelligent.

So no, its not exactly the same race.

10/4/2012 11:34:17 AM

Quote :

"Amendment 1 anybody? ...and what is Obama's stance on that now?"

since the marriage laws are enforced by the states anyways, it shouldn't really matter what the presidential candidate's views are on the issue.

10/4/2012 11:46:26 AM

Shouldn't huh?

That's an interesting word, "shouldn't."

By that same token Obama is NEVER blamed for gas prices is he?



[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason : -]

10/4/2012 11:48:51 AM

Gas prices are basically right where they were before Bush started manipulating the reserves and the crisis crashed the price along with all other commodities.

edit: Correction, up about 40 cents since then



[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2012 11:54:03 AM

Who won the debate? I don't know. All I know is that America loses in the end.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2012 11:55:16 AM

Good one, dude, never heard that one before

10/4/2012 11:55:42 AM

that's so libertarian!

10/4/2012 11:57:11 AM

Speaking of libertarians, Gary Johnson not getting enough credit for making an hourlong video of himself basically heckling the candidates via webcam in a motel room. I was just waiting for the cleaning person to come in and say "SENOR JOHNSON YOU HAD TO LEAVE BY NOON!!"

10/4/2012 12:06:10 PM

Quote :

"since the marriage laws are enforced by the states anyways, it shouldn't really matter what the presidential candidate's views are on the issue."

sure it should, the federal government does not recognize some marriages and thats a problem. we need to make sure that the president will not defend DOMA. marriages may be done by states, but they are recognized ( or "enforced") by the federal government as well.

10/4/2012 12:10:19 PM

Quote :

"Just so we are clear there is absolutely no chance that obama wins NC"

Or a 38% chance

10/4/2012 12:12:59 PM

lol @ Al Gore blaming the altitude of the flight into Denver for Obama's performance

10/4/2012 12:13:08 PM

10/4/2012 12:18:01 PM

^^ should have rolled down the windows in the plane

10/4/2012 12:19:22 PM

I'll be interested to see how the expectations game plays out for the next two debates. Will we be back to square one with each candidate setting low ones in advance? Or will the GOP get overconfident? Could Obama be pulling a long-run rope-a-dope?

10/4/2012 12:20:48 PM

Quote :

"lol @ Al Gore blaming the altitude of the flight into Denver for Obama's performance"

Funny he would say that, because Obama put in a very Gore-like debate performance. Just like when Gore debated Bush, Obama is the smarter, more articulate of the 2 candidates, but he talked so slow and dumbed things down so much that it was almost patronizing.

I liked Obama a lot better in 2008, when he treated the audience as if they were smart. He doesn't need to be pulling a page from Gore's book by trying to dumb down his platform for the common man. I half expected Obama to start talking about putting SS funds in a "lock box" by the end of that debate.

10/4/2012 12:25:16 PM

^^Everyone is clamoring for blood now, so I imagine Obama will tear into Romney next time.

Romney probably expects this; he probably expected it this time.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason : -]

10/4/2012 12:26:04 PM

Quote :

"CapnObvious: I also find it very interesting that Obama's demeanor was so off-key that it is the primary focus of post-debate discussions as opposed to Romney, who basically contradicted everything he had been campaigning for this entire election cycle. Either he A) flip-flopped and changed his views right before the debate or B) told bold-faced lies."

Not saying something stupid/appearing "presidential" (LOL) are all that matters in the debates.

Candidates flip-flop and lie so blatantly and so often that we can no longer analyze the content of their speech. I think that's part of why the debates are sooooo boring: you're listening to a bunch of crap that's crap and doesn't actually mean anything.

So it's crap, and naturally, most of us stop paying attention and/or get desensitized, but then crazy stuff happens while we're busy watching Duck Dynasty and Real Housewives. But can you blame us? No healthy person has the necessary attention span/stomach for this garbage.

10/4/2012 12:43:54 PM

hey guys... it's unfair to the next generation the way this generation spends, we have to cut down that debt for our grandkids' sake.

also, i want to burn more coal.

10/4/2012 12:49:16 PM

Maybe if they focused the debates on philosophies rather then policies, it'd make more sense. It's kind of dumb to try and pin down specifics, because they have to work with Congress anyway.

It was telling that mitt was so obsessed with pointing out how terrible government is at everything,while clamoring for the job as leader of the government.

10/4/2012 12:50:54 PM

We're like the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Might as well put it to good use.

10/4/2012 12:51:21 PM

I'm still trying to figure out how lowering effective tax rates but then offsetting that by eliminating deductions is considered a tax "cut".

10/4/2012 12:51:29 PM

^ Mitt seems to be backing away from his claim of not raising taxes now I think...

10/4/2012 12:57:48 PM

Also, what deductions are they planning to cut? Are my student loan payment deductions and mortgage deduction safe?

10/4/2012 12:58:10 PM

^^^It's not. It's a completely incoherent plan that ceases to make sense once any sort of critical thinking is applied to it. He wants to eliminate deductions but remain revenue neutral by lowering the rates, which somehow translates to lower taxes. Not only does the math not add up unless you eliminate things like the mortgage interest deduction and child tax credits, even if the math did add up it still doesn't accomplish anything.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM. Reason : :]

10/4/2012 1:03:01 PM

it's politicking at its finest. Like saying ending the wars is a money saving measure opening up opportunities for other uses.

10/4/2012 1:11:24 PM

But he still comes of as the winer in popular opinion.

10/4/2012 1:11:42 PM

If he wants to close a loophole without hurting the middle class, how about taxing capital gains as ordinary income before coming after my mortgage interest deduction.

10/4/2012 1:16:28 PM

^this I can agree with. While I'm opposed to tax increases/changes in general due to the failure of our government; if taxes have to be "raised" then start with changing capital gain income to count as normal income and tax it there.

10/4/2012 1:22:26 PM

We can start by explaining to the majority of people that a capital gains tax is NOT double taxation; a point which unbelievably few people understand in this country.

10/4/2012 1:31:08 PM

Quote :

"it's politicking at its finest. Like saying ending the wars is a money saving measure opening up opportunities for other uses."

Exactly. He says he wants to use the war SAVINGS to INVEST on teachers, etc. Then 5 minutes later call them unfunded wars put on a credit card. LOL Shit like that gives me zero hope that obama can actually cut spending.

10/4/2012 1:31:38 PM

^^


80% of the country has no idea what capital gains means.

It's not "people" that's holding back a reasonable tax policy on capital gains, it's the elite that can buy more political access than they deserve.

10/4/2012 1:40:42 PM

Quote :

"also, i want to burn more coal."

Admittedly, I wasn't listening to the debate the whole time, but when Romney mentioned that we needed to ramp up "clean coal", I had a rather vocal reaction. Its such pandering garbage to bring that up. Both Democrats and Republicans want to move away from coal IIRC.

Granted, I think Obama did the same in the first election. Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that these lines generate votes.

10/4/2012 1:45:56 PM

I think he actually said "by the way, I love coal!". I thought it was kinda funny.

10/4/2012 1:47:57 PM

Quote :

"It's a completely incoherent plan that ceases to make sense once any sort of critical thinking is applied to it. He wants to eliminate deductions but remain revenue neutral by lowering the rates, which somehow translates to lower taxes. Not only does the math not add up unless you eliminate things like the mortgage interest deduction and child tax credits, even if the math did add up it still doesn't accomplish anything."

You can't see how simplifying the tax code by eliminating loopholes and deductions would be a good thing?

Let me rephrase: What good does the home mortgage interest deduction do? The healthcare exemption? The dozens of tax loopholes that allow even millionaires to often avoid paying any income tax at all? These loopholes and deductions are nothing more than the corruption of our tax code to promote special interests.

The home mortgage interest deduction encourages the use of homes as equity contributing to the mania of home ownership and overleveraging that led to the subprime / financial crisis. The health insurance deduction further propagates our broken, outdated model of employer-provided healthcare. Dozens of similar itemized deductions distort other markets in numerous ways.

You can defend our current tax code, but it's fucking broken. Any economist will tell you that comprehensive tax reform, the kind that Romney advocates, is way past due. Disagree on the tax rates, etc, but there is absolutely no doubt that a simplification of the tax code would be a good thing for the country.

10/4/2012 1:50:24 PM

coal, trees, lakes, cars, big bird. what doesn't this guy love?

^hey, I like being able to deduct my mortgage interest. let's me have more money, which I can invest or spend, thus keeping money in the private sector, which is where true stimulus comes from.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2012 1:51:09 PM

Quote :

"You can defend our current tax code, but it's fucking broken. Any economist will tell you that comprehensive tax reform, the kind that Romney advocates, is way past due."

nobody knows what Romney is advocating

10/4/2012 1:56:31 PM

^sure we do. he advocates for lowering taxes by raising taxes.

10/4/2012 1:57:49 PM

Quote :

"You can't see how simplifying the tax code by eliminating loopholes and deductions would be a good thing? "

No, what I don't see is how Romney's plan would accomplish any of it's purported goals. You are defending a fantasy plan that no is proposing. This is what Romney is proposing,

1. Lower rates in a way that overwhelmingly benefits high earners.

2. Eliminate deductions that overwhelmingly benefit the middle class.

3....

4. Economic prosperity.

It's the underpants gnomes tax plans.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM. Reason : :]

10/4/2012 2:01:20 PM

And again, why is it that he won the debate?

I just don't get it. BO clearly called him out on that and then refereed to it as his "never-mind" policy.

10/4/2012 2:10:34 PM

Lowering rates by 20% across the board benefits everyone equally.

Yes, in order to keep this revenue neutral, he'd need to eliminate the biggest deductions, namely the home mortgage interest deduction and others. Many (but not all) of these deductions go to the middle class and poor.

Again, you can disagree on the actual rates. If he is being realistic, he should probably focus on a middle-class tax cut paid for by eliminating deductions, and leave the highest tax bracket where it's at. But the basic concept, that of simplifying the tax code and lowering rates, is one that would absolutely benefit the economy. Hell, Obama has proposed the same thing numerous times, except on the business side of things. But you dismissed it as incoherent, not able to accomplish anything, and now "the underpants gnomes tax plan".

It's pretty clear that you have no grasp of economics, and you've been reading partisan blogs for too long.

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : 2]

10/4/2012 2:11:11 PM

Revenue Neutral!

http://newsone.com/2051465/chris-wallace-paul-ryan/

10/4/2012 2:21:00 PM

Quote :

"We're like the Saudi Arabia of coal. Might as well put it to good use. "

every pound of coal we don't burn will get burned in china

10/4/2012 2:29:50 PM

In order to lower taxes on the middle class while being revenue neutral, the money has to come from another class. Capping deductions is just taking it back from the middle class again.

If he had said this was to simplify the tax code, then OK I guess I can see that, but that's not what I heard.

10/4/2012 2:33:07 PM

If a new tax plan is deficit neutral, wouldn't that necessarily mean it was no more than a shift in the overall tax burden? I mean, "20% tax cut for all" sounds nice but if it's deficit-neutral then somebody's are going up through the elimination of deductions.

Unless he's talking about effective, and not nominal tax rates, which would just mean he's insane. God forbid he actually say what the effective rate changes would look like. Isn't this just a classic bait-and-switch?

[Edited on October 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2012 2:42:37 PM