2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[huskyfan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

for his first big debate I thought Ryan did good. seemed a little nervous and he had some opportunities to score on Biden but didnt take advantage

Biden wins on substance and passion

Biden loses on style. the disrespectful smirks, the odd laughter, the eye rolling - cmon pols - this is serious stuff, lets be civil polite and leave the histrionics for stump speeches.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The best thing that Biden did was he set the stage for Obama to have a comeback performance. Ryan did his job explaining Romney's positions as best he could but with the exception of Benghazi they still have the same problem which is most of the plans are unworkable. If Mittens thinks his tax cut plan will pay for itself, he needs to not only say that but explain how its different from Bush economics because we heard that same thing ten years ago.

Syria and Afghanistan is another issue. Dan Senor was on TV walking back or clarifying Ryan's remarks about open ended troop engagements. Romney criticized the decision to leave Iraq. Does he still stand by that and staying later in Afghanistan, because Senor was stating Romney-Ryan has the exact same plan as Obama. So, a candidate attacking an incumbent for being weak plans on prosecuting the biggest global conflict before us right now, the on-going war, in the same way? Ummm..okay, but doesn't that make Romney weak by association?

At the end of the day though, its on Obama. Another bad performance and I don't think he'd be able to undo all the damage in a 3rd debate solely on foreign policy. Biden did him a huge favor by correcting the mistakes of the 1st debate. We'll see on Tuesday if he's learned that lesson.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

On the other side, I thought Ryan was personable, but I'm still not sure where his math is coming from. We get how the lowered tax rates will "broaden the base", as he likes to say, and the additional tax-payers will help bridge the gap. But I would seriously like to know what loopholes and deductions that he and Romney plan on closing, because they would have to be seriously large (read: commonly used ones) to make a big difference.

The biggest single deduction other than breeding is the interest deduction on mortgage payments. It would be poison for them to state it, but it would have to be one of the first on the cutting block.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Whether or not they are profitable, there's one huge glaring problem with government takeover of industries. Someone has to decide who gets the taxpayers' money. When $100,000,000 of taxpayer funds ends up in the pocket of one extremely well-connected fat-*** politician you've got a problem. When people don't even care enough to throw them in prison it's a much bigger problem. There's no shame or consequences to it anymore, all that matters is who you can buy.

 

[duper]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

if there is already a state law against murder, and murder would occur IN a state..... why would you need it?

I would say for two reasons.

Number one, because whether or not murder is legal should NOT be left in the hands of the state. (This is where this issue could translate to abortion. Is this an issue on which the states should have their power to ban it taken away by the feds) By having a murder law in the US Code, you guarantee that if some state abolishes their murder law, murder will still be illegal in that state. So the question there is, does the fed have the power to over-rule the state on that issue.

Number two, because there are places in the country where no state has jurisdiction. If a murder happens in those places, the fed investigates and prosecutes.


And once again, I was not commenting on the need for a federal murder law, or on the usefulness thereof. I was merely commenting on how ludicrous it is to believe that there isn't one.

 

[Rover]

The biggest single deduction other than breeding is the interest deduction on mortgage payments. It would be poison for them to state it, but it would have to be one of the first on the cutting block.

This is a big missed opportunity IMHO. What Romney could have done is offered up a plan that reduced deductions and Medicare...but strictly for the purpose of reducing the deficit. By incorporating yet another round of tax cuts, even beyond what Bush put in place, again falling more favorably on the wealthy, its the same old tired formula. I'm not sure the public agrees that the solution to our economic and budget problems is yet more tax breaks for Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and the Kardashians.

A fair assessment of the Obama administration is that the debt is far too high which he inherited but hasn't brought down. A strict deficit reduction package, not an overreach to include upper income tax breaks would have been easier to sell.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The biggest single deduction other than breeding is the interest deduction on mortgage payments. It would be poison for them to state it, but it would have to be one of the first on the cutting block.

Cut the breeding one. Make it even more expensive to raise kids. And it is expensive.

 

[duper]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Cut the breeding one. Make it even more expensive to raise kids. And it is expensive.

Leave the deduction, but figure out what the benefit will be to a family over the course of their lifetime. Then create a new tax equal to that amount, which the parents must pay before they can take the kid home from the hospital. That way, poor people will have to give their kids up for adoptions, so that they can be raised by fit parents, not those poor rabble.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Leave the deduction, but figure out what the benefit will be to a family over the course of their lifetime. Then create a new tax equal to that amount, which the parents must pay before they can take the kid home from the hospital. That way, poor people will have to give their kids up for adoptions, so that they can be raised by fit parents, not those poor rabble.

Sure. That'll work.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

This is a big missed opportunity IMHO. What Romney could have done is offered up a plan that reduced deductions and Medicare...but strictly for the purpose of reducing the deficit. By incorporating yet another round of tax cuts, even beyond what Bush put in place, again falling more favorably on the wealthy, its the same old tired formula. I'm not sure the public agrees that the solution to our economic and budget problems is yet more tax breaks for Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and the Kardashians.

A fair assessment of the Obama administration is that the debt is far too high which he inherited but hasn't brought down. A strict deficit reduction package, not an overreach to include upper income tax breaks would have been easier to sell.

Nice try. The numbers show he grew the deficit substantially, rather than cut it in half as he promised.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Nice try. The numbers show he grew the deficit substantially, rather than cut it in half as he promised.

The debt grew but not the deficit. The deficit was at a trill a year before Obama took office.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

It's kind of amusing that the Obama campaign is trying to assert that Romney is a liar and is finding out that people don't believe them when they say it!


If by "liar" one means a person who deliberately makes a factual statement which s/he knows in advance is untrue, then the "evidence" of Romney's "lying" is underwhelming, to say the least....most of the time it's merely a matter of opinion* and not subject to "fact" checking at all.

I know it is frustrating but "lie" is a bit extreme.


(*example: "how can he claim to be revenue neutral about cutting tax rates while also limiting deductions without identifying any one particular deduction for elimination? he 'must be' lying."
except that's not a "lie" that's merely saying "we have a concept we like and we have to remain fuzzy on the details because we'll have to negotiate them with Congress after the election and we don't know the makeup of that Congress yet and so there's nothing to be gained by starting those negotiations now and there's plenty to lose if we mention a deduction that someone really likes.")


Now, saying that reaction to a video caused an ambassador's death when the intelligence reports said from the outset that it was an organized terrorist attack......does that fit the traditional definition of deliberately making a factual statement which is known to be untrue when it is uttered?

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

To me the funniest part of the debate was Ryan saying that he didn't ask for stimulus money... he was advocating for his consituents who were applying for grants.

 

[Rover]

It's kind of amusing that the Obama campaign is trying to assert that Romney is a liar and is finding out that people don't believe them when they say it!


If by "liar" one means a person who deliberately makes a factual statement which s/he knows in advance is untrue, then the "evidence" of Romney's "lying" is underwhelming, to say the least....most of the time it's merely a matter of opinion* and not subject to "fact" checking at all.

I know it is frustrating but "lie" is a bit extreme.


(*example: "how can he claim to be revenue neutral about cutting tax rates while also limiting deductions without identifying any one particular deduction for elimination? he 'must be' lying."
except that's not a "lie" that's merely saying "we have a concept we like and we have to remain fuzzy on the details because we'll have to negotiate them with Congress after the election and we don't know the makeup of that Congress yet and so there's nothing to be gained by starting those negotiations now and there's plenty to lose if we mention a deduction that someone really likes.")


Now, saying that reaction to a video caused an ambassador's death when the intelligence reports said from the outset that it was an organized terrorist attack......does that fit the traditional definition of deliberately making a factual statement which is known to be untrue when it is uttered?

I hate to burst your bubble, but saying you can make your tax plan revenue neutral when you've taken off the table the changes that would make that possible constitutes a lie. If it wasn't a lie, why wouldn't Mittens and Ryan tell us how they can accomplish it? Are the going to invent some new mathematical equation to make this happen?

 

[Rover]

To me the funniest part of the debate was Ryan saying that he didn't ask for stimulus money... he was advocating for his consituents who were applying for grants.

Somebody commented on this and ripped it to shreds. So if you were in his district and wanted federal funds to open an abortion clinic, he'd go out there and try to get them for you even though he disagrees with the practice? Oooookaaayyyyy...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Hey, if the feds are going to blow a trillion dollars, I can understand people thinking that the money out to at least be spread around a bit (though of course a lot was directed to cronies, but that's another discussion the media avoids). If he really only advocated for two projects in his district, that sounds like small potatoes compared to the money that flowed to a lot of areas of the country. The abortion clinic example is just stupid, and fictional as much of your postings are.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Hey, if the feds are going to blow a trillion dollars, I can understand people thinking that the money out to at least be spread around a bit (though of course a lot was directed to cronies, but that's another discussion the media avoids). If he really only advocated for two projects in his district, that sounds like small potatoes compared to the money that flowed to a lot of areas of the country. The abortion clinic example is just stupid, and fictional as much of your postings are.

You're excusing him for that when they won't even dole out a few paltry million for PBS?

That's pretty funny.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

On the debate, no clear winner. Biden was feisty and aggressive and didn't have a lot of gaffes, but was consistently rude and cut in constantly (too bad the moderator didn't make an effort to cut him off as she did with Ryan). Ryan did ok, but didn't seem to be as sharp and on his game as I've seen other times. I don't expect it'll have much influence one way or another.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

You're excusing him for that when they won't even dole out a few paltry million for PBS?

That's pretty funny.

PBS is funded from stimulus? I don't think so. Oh, but stimulus isn't a one time thing as promised, but is basically every year now with the constant deficits. You're Obama pandering knows no bounds.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

PBS is funded from stimulus? I don't think so. Oh, but stimulus isn't a one time thing as promised, but is basically every year now with the constant deficits. You're Obama pandering knows no bounds.

It's all tax dollars, Bob. If we don't start cutting somewhere we'll never get anywhere. Seems a principled individual would make a stand instead of reaching his hand out.