2012 First U.S. Presidential Debate |OT| OK Libya... We need a leader, not a reader.
- Thread starter deviljho
- Start date
- Status
Sounded like the same bullshit he's been peddling with an extra heap of magic.
He was slashing taxes for everyone, but getting rid of loopholes in order to keep revenue the same. Tax Policy Center and others said that would be a huge cut for the wealthy and the middle class would have to pay more, because that's how the math works. Obama pointed that out. Mitt's response seems to be that it isn't his plan, because the he says he just won't be cutting taxes for the wealthy. He reiterated the same talking points again.
Really seems to amount to "It's this, but the results aren't what they told you, because, duh, I wouldn't want to do that, and right now I'm saying I wouldn't do that."
Magic.
If Obama had actually gone into great detail he would have had this debate in the bag. Instead his speaking time was filled with too much dead air.
Neither went into specifics very well, but Mittens was just a bit better about bulldozing through it.
There is now no statement Romney has made about his tax plan, even the most basic ones like "I will raise taxes" or "I will cut taxes," that isn't contradicted by another statement he's made at another time. So, I mean, your guess is kind of as good as mine.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Oh yeah, forgot about that, and he is not ending medicare... for current elderly, but younger folk will have a voucher system.
he is also going to repeal obamacare and replace it with something that is too complicated to describe.
anything else we are missing?
Angry Fork
Member
If this happened it could secure the collapse of capitalism and a dramatic resurgence in leftist protests/uprisings.
That's not set in stone obviously but I do think it's a possibility one should consider tactics-wise for a real progressive alternative. Obama is only left on social issues, everything else about him is center right and it's horrible.
The effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union still lingers deeply. With Reagan and neoliberal victory, Clinton doing big business centrist new democrat bullshit and so on. And Obama is just continuing the tradition. I don't think real leftist sentiment will come back to America unless something like another recession or depression happened. It sucks but that may be necessary.
flippymittens
Banned
Well what is more important, the lives of men, women, and children or the prospect of a moderate judge on the supreme court?
I sincerely doubt given the current make-up of the senate a conservative could make it.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Holy shit O_O It's 7 am in the morning and I literally dosed off and forgot I posted already... My bad man.
Unfortunately that's what matters it seems =/
So am I the only one that thought that Jim Lehrer did a pretty poor job of moderating it as a whole? It seemed like a train wreck. Everyone going over their time limits over and over again. Only once or twice did Jim really put his foot down. I felt like he just let the whole thing get out of his control.
eBay Huckster
Member
Precisely the same things for which he critiques President Obama, which will somehow result in mass protests from Democrats who obviously wouldn't be okay with these things under a Republican president.
Or something.
He wants to find ways to lower taxes on "small" businesses. Whether that means businesses then take their profits as income is uncertain. He will definitely try to get rid of all kinds of tax deductions and credits for low and middle income households.
Agree and disagree. In boxing, there is a saying that sometimes a fighter loses a fight, but wins the event. Although appearing tired and stuttering is worse for performance in a debate, looking panicky and stuttering (not to mention evasive, vacuous, and disingenuous), is worse for appearing Presidential. This is what Presidential debates are really about. They aren't really debates at all.
I agree that people were underestimating Romney. He was a moderate Republican governor of a liberal state who is now trying to run for President at the head of a party whose base has shifted farther to the right than at any time since Barry Goldwater. He clearly perceived himself as having problems with his "base", which is why his move to the center didn't come until the radical views he was espousing to win his base started to clearly cost him the election. Its just a little odd that the move seemed to come right before he stepped on stage for his first Presidential debate. At this point I don't know that anyone is really sure of what Romney's views actually are.
Romney is no moron though. In reality, neither was Bush II. At least compared to Gore and Kerry. I do think that the views of the Republican base are out of step with where the country is and where the going is going. That is why Romney had to "flip-flop". It was either stay where he was and get destroyed, or move to the center and try to catch President Obama unaware.
In the end I do agree that it won't matter to the outcome of Presidential election. Romney not futher imploding might help Republicans keep their house majority and prevent the Democrats from making gains in the Senate though.
Meh. I'm pretty liberal and I give nary a fuck about that in comparison to the myriad domestic issues we face.
flippymittens
Banned
Given the choices, I would rather vote for Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Gary Johnson. However being practical I am leaning towards Romney because as far as I am concerned, the ends justify the means.
I do not mouth off my beliefs in public because they would have no weight but if I was someone of influence, you bet I would rally progressives to vote for Mitt Romney.
Not at all. The general consensus is that Lehrer was absolutely useless tonight. Just devoid of use.
There was unanimous agreement that Lehrer did a horrible job. Worst moderator I have seen in ages.
CherryWoodFuton
Member
Flippymittens doesnt think Obama isnt progressive enough so he plans to vote for Romney who is more progressive??? No umm wait.....
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I... I still don't understand. What exactly is it about Romney that makes you want to vote for him?
phosphor112
Banned
He needs to stop fighting bullshit with smarts.
He needs to find the weak points and then attack. And he failed to do that. There were only a few moments where I thought "damn, nice one" when he spoke. There is so much to play off of Mitt and he failed and it just doesn't make sense.
eBay Huckster
Member
Just gonna drop this in here for everyone who isn't discussing the merits of voting for people diametrically opposed to you ideologically:
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Again, you would vote for a man who says he want to get tougher on Iran, and wants to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. You should not vote or vote for Obama.
flippymittens
Banned
Well then we disagre, although President Obama was pretty well to wall-street and the major banks.
Nope, never said that. I said given President Obama's cult of personality and operation under the brand of the more liberal mainstream party... He is a detriment to progressive beliefs.
I disagree. I think it's more of a waiting game. The next generation, my generation, doesn't have stupid prejudices against words like "socialism." We're pretty progressive about things innately, possibly because we grew up with the internet and I can sit here and talk to people with universal healthcare and they're doing just fine, not dying under the effects of oppressive government. As you said, the collapse of the Soviet Union still lingers, and a lot of that is the baby boomer generation.
Personally I look at people like Obama as someone who's sticking his finger in the dike and kind of waiting to pass it on. Yeah he's not going full hog on progressivism, but it's better than going further right. He's holding things back. Some things, anyway. I think this is a long game, though. People now are still worried about silly words and need to be taught first and foremost that Democrats and left leaning policies aren't the end of the world. If we allow Obamacare, which is barely a progressive policy at all, but nonetheless is characterized that way, to get repealed, then people will keep their stupid fears.
Along with all that, whatever president comes next will very very likely be the head of a recovering economy. Economists have said it will pick up no matter who's in office, and that's probably pretty true. With a Romney presidency he'd get credit for all that, even for things Obama started to put into place. That's bad. That's the last thing we need is people putting more faith into the bullshit that Romney and the right are spewing right now.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Oh yeah, Romneycare is a great plan for every state to implement on their own....
um...
yeah.
flippymittens
Banned
Romney is just an ends to a means as far as voting goes for me.
Yes because the ends justify the means. Romney would bring more credit to progressives. He would reignite criticism that was silenced when President Obama was handed the Presidency.
As a small business owner who must claim my income as part of my household income, I will assure you that you can't do both.
only the good parts, but Romney can't tell you what those are either.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
You aren't answering my question. What means? How does having Romney in the White House push a progressive agenda? Do you realize that if he wins the white house, the republicans very likely will keep the House and might win the Senate, meaning that they would control the entire government? What kinds of progressive bills do you think will get passed? I am very confused by your logic.
I think you know what I meant. An LLC for example, can file as a corporation or use pass-through tax principles.
Its not a $5 trillion dollar tax cut because it is magically revenue neutral. It is revenue neutral because it eliminates deductions (which Mitt Romney will not specify). Romney is saying that his tax cut really isn't a tax cut because he will pay for it with deductions. It makes no sense. If you are cutting someone's tax rate and you follow that with eliminating deductions then are you not just cutting and then raising someone's tax rate? What percentage does that leave us with? And for what group? Which deductions are cut? How do those deductions affect people of different income levels?
speculawyer
Member
Nobody fucking knows what it is. Not even Romney. Something about cutting rates but eliminating deductions but he won't say which ones and it is all supposedly revenue neutral while increasing the military and cutting the deficit.
So basically, it is a fucking shell game with bad math.
eBay Huckster
Member
He'd also put domestic policies into place rolling back any 'progressive' gains made since 1930 (since a Romney win at this point would almost certainly mean Republicans holding both chambers of Congress), but that doesn't matter because drone strikes are Hitler
GillianSeed79
Member
This is my impression from tonight's debate.
Romney: Vague bullshit and lies about tax cuts and Obamacare.
Obama: Jim, Jim, Jim let me respond. I believe in investing in America. That's why I want to hire a few hundred thousand teachers and community colleges are swell.
Romney: Really? That's it. I've been lobbing you softballs all night. Not even anything about the 47 percent comment? You know that was very damaging to my campaign right? Huh.
Obama: Jim, Jim, let me respond. I agree with Governor Romney that teachers are good people. I like teachers and community colleges. Let me finish Jim. I agree with Governor Romney.
Romney: This is awkward.
CherryWoodFuton
Member
That's a dangerous game to play. I'd rather vote for a third party and have Obama win than vote for Romney outright and have America go down further in the shitter. Its kinda like picking the lesser of two evils thing.
ThisWreckage
Banned
Nothing Obama can do can be a net positive for him at this point. All Mitt has to do is keep things vague and go toe to toe and that would be a big win for him. He actually won tonight so that is a huge get. Romney is the debate underdog. A meager performance for him equates a fantastic debate. Standards are low and he will reap from that.
The Romney comment about Obama working on health care while millions are unemployed is going to resonate big time.
The Romney comment about Obama working on health care while millions are unemployed is going to resonate big time.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
So you would be fine with more lives being placed in danger for the what you consider the greater good. Sounds what like what you accuse Obama of doing.
Was his point that he'd leave it up to the states?
Mitt's tax plan, from what I can gather:
1) Cut tax rates on businesses, particularly small businesses.
2) Don't raise taxes on the wealthy, ie don't "let the Bush tax cuts expire."
3) Remove loopholes to make up for the lost revenue of the cut rates on businesses.
a) Don't be specific about the loopholes because then your opponents can attack you on it, no matter what they are.
b) Don't be specific about the loopholes because you admit that governing is not about being a king, it's about compromise, and you're admitting that you want to sit down with Congress and figure out these specifics together.
c) Even considering b), you really should offer at least two examples of some loopholes, but you're too much of a coward to even give one example because of a).
And here is the big one that most of the media and definitely GAF always misses;
4) With lower taxes, the economy recovers. The more money people start making, the more jobs people have, meaning people have even more money, and therefore the government also has more money. 35% of 5 trillion is less than 30% of 7 trillion, just as a very basic example.
1) Cut tax rates on businesses, particularly small businesses.
2) Don't raise taxes on the wealthy, ie don't "let the Bush tax cuts expire."
3) Remove loopholes to make up for the lost revenue of the cut rates on businesses.
a) Don't be specific about the loopholes because then your opponents can attack you on it, no matter what they are.
b) Don't be specific about the loopholes because you admit that governing is not about being a king, it's about compromise, and you're admitting that you want to sit down with Congress and figure out these specifics together.
c) Even considering b), you really should offer at least two examples of some loopholes, but you're too much of a coward to even give one example because of a).
And here is the big one that most of the media and definitely GAF always misses;
4) With lower taxes, the economy recovers. The more money people start making, the more jobs people have, meaning people have even more money, and therefore the government also has more money. 35% of 5 trillion is less than 30% of 7 trillion, just as a very basic example.
It is so frustrating to realize that the only reason Romney could survive (let alone win) these debates is because of his ability to hit all the right notes for low-information voters.
His statements on energy and healthcare were ludicrous. His tax plan makes no sense. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on education. But that's 3/4 areas where he is clearly and completely full of shit, and yet everyone (even the Poligaffers who actually read studies on these issues) is giving him the win because they know he said the things that Joe Plumber would want to hear.
I wish everyone in the country were smarter, and that the debates contained half hour powerpoint presentations by each candidate complete with charts and graphs, and that some adjudicator had the power to disqualify any candidate who repeatedly used incorrect numbers.
His statements on energy and healthcare were ludicrous. His tax plan makes no sense. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on education. But that's 3/4 areas where he is clearly and completely full of shit, and yet everyone (even the Poligaffers who actually read studies on these issues) is giving him the win because they know he said the things that Joe Plumber would want to hear.
I wish everyone in the country were smarter, and that the debates contained half hour powerpoint presentations by each candidate complete with charts and graphs, and that some adjudicator had the power to disqualify any candidate who repeatedly used incorrect numbers.
My point is that, for the average ACTUAL small business, cuts to their small business tax while removing their personal deductions will not make the businesses more successful in terms of what people actually run businesses to do, which is to pay their bills; so those are still, in a sense, contradictory goals.
Well, it's not so much that I at least missed it, so much as that I don't really believe it. And the figure of 12 million jobs that Romney keeps batting about is the figure most economists give for job growth over the next four years under status quo economic policies -- so he doesn't seem too confident in the economy doing better under his policies than Obama's either!
I am sorry I argued with you earlier. flippymittens seems to be exactly the person you described. I still think it is a rare thing, but we have one example at least.
Something Wicked
Member
Oh man, this was so predictable. Despite what many on GAF wanted to believe, Obama is a poor debater, while Romney is a particularly good one. This will not change in the next two debates either. With each debate, Romney may get a percentage point or two bump in all swing states.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Sounds good in theory but that hasn't worked in the past. You do know the we have historically low tax rates at the moment right?
Edit: I think I misread your post
Your point is 100% correct.
Romney means "small business" which are actually large businesses but just not giant businesses. He is just trying to be sneaky to get votes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll