No they are not release.
2012 First U.S. Presidential Debate |OT| OK Libya... We need a leader, not a reader.
- Thread starter deviljho
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, haha.I'm sure is very hard on him ,but still I would like leader to show some more confidence and passion.
Kinda felt the same way. Every time Obama went to explain Mitt's plans Mitt would respond with "that's not the facts" or "that's not my plan". If Mitt responds vaguely as he usually does Obama needs to be concise about it not adding up or else he'll just be playing whack a mole for the rest of the debates. He needs something direct about Mitt's plans being too good to be true or out of touch with reality. Clinton was perfect with the zingers at the DNC. Obama gets mired in extended policy talk hoping people are going to put the pieces together when in most cases they won't.
Fox Mulder
Member
They need a super computer AI to analyze statements in real time and flash "Bullshit!" Or "LIES!" on the screen. Moderators won't do it, and neither will the candidates.
Synth_floyd
Banned
You're upset that people who lie with confidence get ahead in life? Welcome to the real world.
Kevitivity
Member
Tonight was a disaster for BO. He seemed like he was uninterested, tired... Head in his notes the whole time... If this was a fight it would have been stopped.
I actually liked Romney's plans better. There, GAF, come at me.
First off, both candidates tell half-truths, yet GAF is only acknowledging Romney's (and calling them straight-up lies, when they're not; they're distorted facts, just like Obama's):
http://www.politifact.com/
I haven't liked how Romney's won a lot of his campaign so far. The fact that he changes his position so much was worrying to me.
But the reason I'm not worried about it anymore is because he was so much better tonight than he's ever been, it's obvious that he was himself tonight. I don't like that he changed his policies, but the retarded GOP would have never put him through had he not pretended to be Super Conservative Man.
During the primaries, he was obviously conforming to someone he is not, and it showed. Gaffs everywhere. Terrible debates. Because he was pretending to be a character he's not. Made me not want to vote for him.
But tonight, for the first time he seemed to actually believe the policies he was proposing. So I think the flip-flopping won't be a problem in the future. I could be wrong, but I'm optimistic.
His plan for cutting tax rates to raise revenue actually made sense to me. An employer paying 40% taxes and hiring 4 employees at 20% each will generate less tax revenue than an employer paying 20% taxes and hiring 10 employees at 18% each. I don't know why you guys are saying there wasn't substance; this seems like a solid theory to me.
Things I don't agree with, though: private sector always being more efficient. I think it's mostly true, but for some things, gov't does a better job. Utilities, for example. Cable, internet, water and electricity are all pretty much the same business models. But the utilities run by the gov't are much better (in my experience) than cable and internet providers. So Romney's a bit too trusting in the private sector for my liking. But my economic theories are probably closer to his than Obama's.
EDIT: The $5 trillion seems to be a big deal with you guys. Politifact.com showed how Obama's camp came up with that number (over 10 years), and rated it half-true: Obama's camp took into account the tax cut, but didn't take into account any of the policies meant to offset that number. Further, something Politifact didn't talk about is Romney's main source of recouping the lost revenue, which I talked about above: get that unemployment down to 5%, and that's 3% more employed Americans that will be paying taxes. So amid the (admittedly vague) closing of loopholes, and the extra tax revenue from greater employment numbers, Mitt is probably right that $5 trillion will not be lost. Over ten years of greater employment, a lot of that cost would be offset by the greater number of tax payers.
First off, both candidates tell half-truths, yet GAF is only acknowledging Romney's (and calling them straight-up lies, when they're not; they're distorted facts, just like Obama's):
http://www.politifact.com/
I haven't liked how Romney's won a lot of his campaign so far. The fact that he changes his position so much was worrying to me.
But the reason I'm not worried about it anymore is because he was so much better tonight than he's ever been, it's obvious that he was himself tonight. I don't like that he changed his policies, but the retarded GOP would have never put him through had he not pretended to be Super Conservative Man.
During the primaries, he was obviously conforming to someone he is not, and it showed. Gaffs everywhere. Terrible debates. Because he was pretending to be a character he's not. Made me not want to vote for him.
But tonight, for the first time he seemed to actually believe the policies he was proposing. So I think the flip-flopping won't be a problem in the future. I could be wrong, but I'm optimistic.
His plan for cutting tax rates to raise revenue actually made sense to me. An employer paying 40% taxes and hiring 4 employees at 20% each will generate less tax revenue than an employer paying 20% taxes and hiring 10 employees at 18% each. I don't know why you guys are saying there wasn't substance; this seems like a solid theory to me.
Things I don't agree with, though: private sector always being more efficient. I think it's mostly true, but for some things, gov't does a better job. Utilities, for example. Cable, internet, water and electricity are all pretty much the same business models. But the utilities run by the gov't are much better (in my experience) than cable and internet providers. So Romney's a bit too trusting in the private sector for my liking. But my economic theories are probably closer to his than Obama's.
EDIT: The $5 trillion seems to be a big deal with you guys. Politifact.com showed how Obama's camp came up with that number (over 10 years), and rated it half-true: Obama's camp took into account the tax cut, but didn't take into account any of the policies meant to offset that number. Further, something Politifact didn't talk about is Romney's main source of recouping the lost revenue, which I talked about above: get that unemployment down to 5%, and that's 3% more employed Americans that will be paying taxes. So amid the (admittedly vague) closing of loopholes, and the extra tax revenue from greater employment numbers, Mitt is probably right that $5 trillion will not be lost. Over ten years of greater employment, a lot of that cost would be offset by the greater number of tax payers.
polyh3dron
Banned
Thing is, those weren't his plans as of yesterday. And they won't be his plans tomorrow.
Every word that came out of his mouth was insincere. It was flat out sociopathic, and it's even worse now that his programmers have finally added a fake empathy abstraction layer to his programming. He said he would help those people get jobs but not one thing he said explained how he would help people get jobs.
NullPointer
Member
Romney told people what they wanted to hear, and Obama didn't call him on his bullshit well enough, even though he tried a few times.
What plans? I heard principles, not plans.
To use his own words, what government services did Romney support that are worth borrowing money from China?
Devolution
Member
Conservatives are for smaller government. The Republican Party just expands government where they want it.
President was in shock that Romney suddenly retracted (denied/lied) about every plank of his platform that he has been campaigning on for the last 6 mos.
He was in shock and unprepared for him to lie and deny everything that he has been saying he would do for months (years) All while twisting the facts of Obama's ideas. He was stunned like a deer and never recovered. I do not expect the same result again.
He was in shock and unprepared for him to lie and deny everything that he has been saying he would do for months (years) All while twisting the facts of Obama's ideas. He was stunned like a deer and never recovered. I do not expect the same result again.
Tornado Condor
Member
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
it'sbetterinsomalia.jpg
If shrinking government is the metric by which you judge a president then you might want to look at the change in government payrolls over the past decade.
ie extra 2 trillion in corporate defense contracts to their supporters that the Pentagon says they do not need in the new environment of the military's focus of defense
polyh3dron
Banned
I was going by the quoted poster's definition of plans, but yes. He mentioned wanting to help the middle class, didn't say how and it goes against his whole campaign to this point. He mentioned he would help struggling families get jobs. Didn't say how. He said he wouldn't cut taxes for the rich even though his plan to this point was to cut taxes for the rich.
It sounds good in theory, but in practice the tax cut isn't going to result in a company increasing it's workforce by 150%. Unless there is a greater demand than capacity for the product or service, there is no reason to hire additional employees.
Maybe if you read the rest of my post instead of jumping to gut reactions, you would see a response to everything you just said. Now, if you have a reason why what I said is wrong, I'm more than willing to listen, but derogatorily regurgitating the Mitt's-a-robot line doesn't help anyone. It just makes you feel better about yourself.
Read my post, tell me where my reasoning is wrong, and have a normal discussion.
EDIT:
Yeah, that was pretty bad. I myself am on student loans. At the same time, I still feel like his governorship in Mass. is more representative of who he would be as a president. I'm undecided, but I get the feeling he was pandering to the echochamber of retarded GOP he was talking to. Actually, kind of like members of GAF are all patting each other on the back, reassuring each other, saying Romney's a liar and Obama only tells truth. He was a GAF member for a day, ha. No, but seriously, I know what you mean. I'm still inclined to think it's the GOP's bad influence, and not who he really is, politically speaking.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think he gained a lot of votes, actually. Challengers always benefit in debates and Romney took full advantage of that. He looked and sounded clear while Obama looked and sounded disinterested or rambling. Romney offered multiple opportunities for Obama to attack and he refused. He literally said Romney doesn't want to change social security, when Romney is on record supporting raising the retirement age. He let Romney talk about vague deductions without challenging Romney to name any. And he didn't mention that the 716b in Medicare cuts are also in Paul Ryan's budget.
It was a horrible performance. Before the debate many news sites ran stories about Obama calling debate prep a drag, and tonight it was clear he wasn't prepared. The other guy did his homework, at least in their eyes. I think that says something about the candidates, and voters may determine they'll go with the guy who prepares for the job. Romney lied his ass off but I'm not sure it even matters
The unfortunate truth. Plus more legislation of social issues.
Officerrob
Banned
FYI for anyone who gave a shit about that CNN post debate poll, you can wipe your ass with it. The poll was only people from the south who are white and over 50.........seriously
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf
The problem is, of course, recouping that five trillion dollar cut. Saying reducing unemployment to 5% is incredibly optimistic, and even then, doing some rough math: 3% of 320,000,000 is 9.6 million, which means to make that up, each citizen would need to pay over half a million dollars in taxes. In reality, even with that incredibly optimistic figure, that extra 3% might pick up 1-2% of the five trillion.
It just isn't there. Where is the money coming from? He said he isn't willing to cut military spending, education, health care...the only thing I've heard him say he was willing to cut was PBS.
polyh3dron
Banned
How do you know that he's for real tonight? He has a proven track record of telling people what they want to hear with no real convictions of his own. The guy doesn't believe in anything. And you know he's bringing all Bush admin advisers with him for foreign and domestic policy right? The NeoCons would be running things again if he won.
Devolution
Member
Nor is he willing to tax big business. So no clue.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Romney wants to massively increase military spending. fyi.
Yeah, I think this is what happened. Even though Romney's camp was basically stating that this will be their plan. Romney can't do it again in the next debate, he will have to stick with his current 'plans,' right? :/
Black Mamba
Member
No President has ever presided under a smaller gov't. Not Reagan, not Bush. I doubt Romney would be special, here.
Mitt Romney is proposing massive military expenditures. What is so special about Romney that he will reverse the trend.
FWIW, gov't spending has increased under Obama less than anyone prior in the modern era.
NullPointer
Member
This should be screamed from the mountaintops. If you want more jobs, you need to have a lot more people buying things.
Adding employees doesn't create revenue. Not unless there is significant demand thats not being provided for.
It's a valid point. The law of diminishing returns would play heavily into it, though, I think. Companies are out to maximize profit. So each employee costs Z+tax+overhead,etc. Eventually companies get to the point where hiring an employee costs as much as it would generate revenue, so they stop hiring. Lower the taxes, and you push that boundary up.
Yeah, I don't think it would increase 150%. I just threw out some numbers for illustration's sake. Whether it would truly offset a lot of the cost is unknown until he reveals the specifics of the plan (which he should do soon in a press release, I think).
speculawyer
Member
I don't even know where to begin. Sense . . . this makes none.
No, I'm not aware of who he's bringing in for his advisers. I'll be watching the foreign policy debate to see who I prefer.
The reason I think he was for real tonight is because he seemed natural. He seemed like he was during the Olympics (turned a huge deficit into a surplus). He worked really well with Dems in Mass. It was only during the primaries that he seemed like a super-right wingnut. I could be wrong, but those are my reasons.
This is also a very valid point. I really think he needs to release the numbers. I guess the reason I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, is because after 9/11, the 2002 Olympics were on the fritz. They had, as far as I'm aware, a $400 million deficit. After they brought Romney in, it changed to a $100 million surplus. Was it all him? Probably not. I'm sure he had very talented people working around him. But yeah, that's basically why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until the full plan is revealed.
EDIT:
Sorry, that was pretty confusing. A small business makes, say, $100k in profit per year. It pays 4 employees $40k. 40% tax on the business would be $40k in taxes, plus 4*20%*$40k= $32k in taxes paid by the employees. So gov't gets a total of $72k in taxes from that organization as a whole. With tax cuts and ten employees, $100k*20%= 20k business tax, plus 10*18%*$40k=$72k for the employees, so the gov't would get $92,000 in taxes from the organization as a whole. So despite cutting taxes, the gov't still gets more revenue from that business, because they hire more unemployed, who pay taxes that otherwise would not have been paid.
Absolutely. Even if the five trillion is all accounted for, it'll give us a much better idea of what he considers unnecessary, and what he isn't willing to compromise.
Officerrob
Banned
He's been running for president for over five years and we are five weeks until the election, I hope you arn't planning on getting details on his plan anytime soon.
No numbers or plan could possibly bring about the outcome he's talking about. It doesn't work like that. Dropping taxes only results in increased revenue in very specific circumstances (that are not currently at play in the US). US tax rates are not high.
No President has ever presided under a smaller gov't. Not Reagan, not Bush. I doubt Romney would be special, here.
Mitt Romney is proposing massive military expenditures. What is so special about Romney that he will reverse the trend.
FWIW, gov't spending has increased under Obama less than anyone prior in the modern era.
technically, that's a shrinkage of government under obama considering inflation and cost of living changes, I believe.
The biggest thing that gets people riled up about obama's "outrageous spending" aside from the echo chamber is that Obama opted to put the wars and dozen of billions in social security deferments into the budget instead of supplementary appropriations. He put these expenses on the books. They were always there before adding to the national debt, they just never showed up in the budget deficit because they weren't passed as part of the budget. All Obama did was put existing spending policies on the books, not radically increase them.
Under Bush, there was weell over a trillion dollars worth of funds that was added to the national debt but that didnt not show up in any annual budget submitted or passed by congress.
Bush's annual deficits were under-reported by at least $150B-$200B each year because of this.
Black Mamba
Member
No, it doesn't, and the facts don't agree with this. Cutting taxes does not increase revenues at these levels. The supply-sider economists who devised Reagan's tax plans don't even believe this. The most optimistic estimate by the most conservative economists say a $1 tax cut leads to a 65 cent revenue loss. And that's the best case scenario.
And in fact, history proves this true. Reagan had to raise taxes after his tax cuts because revenues dropped too much. The Bush tax cuts have cost us trillions in deficits.
No matter how many times the GOP obfuscation tries, it isn't true. No economist in the world would argue tax cuts alone pay for themselves. Not even supply-siders have ever made this argument.
No, that does not do enough.
The studies Romney cites that to pay for the $5 trillion in cuts, he'd have to close loopholes on those making even $100k (who Romney said he will not raise taxes on) by a significant amount. It also requires an amazing economic turnaround the likes we haven't seen and tax cuts have NEVER produced.
Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ve-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/
Of note, 2 of our WORST economic performances have occured right after the Bush and Reagan tax cuts. Worst investment, growth, etc.
Why would this time be different? What is special about right now? These tax cutting policies hurt investment and thus hurt growth in the job sector, GDP, and take home pay for regular folk.
polyh3dron
Banned
He worked so well with the Dems in Mass that he didn't get re-elected and had one of the worst job creation records in the US as governor at the time.
Krappadizzle
Member
My aunt literally went to school with barrack Obama in the 3rd grade here in Hawaii. I've seen the school photos. Does that count?
Rocket Punch
Member
In Obama's defense it's rather difficult to take shots at a moving target. Romney basically pull crap out of his ass, basically disowning his own tax platform and and pulling numbers left and right without any care of how any of his new proposals are supposed to function in the real world.
How can you argue with rainbows and unicorns that have no basis of reality? Obama got caught sleeping this time. He better be wide awake in the next 2 debates and call out the bullshit this corporate whore is trying to sell the American people.
How can you argue with rainbows and unicorns that have no basis of reality? Obama got caught sleeping this time. He better be wide awake in the next 2 debates and call out the bullshit this corporate whore is trying to sell the American people.
I think a lot of it is actually a misdirection on his part. Like people are saying, he tells half-truths (so does Obama), and he's a salesman. The average household actually pays much, much less than their current tax rate:
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/even-14-romney-pays-higher-rate-97-his-fellow-americans
97% of Americans have an effective tax rate of less than 14%, due to the scaling system and deductions. If he lowers the tax rate, but gets rid of deductions, it would actually likely result in an effective tax increase. He's selling it as a tax cut to make it palpable (which I don't necessarily like, but it is what it is), but it will probably raise taxes. Which I'm okay with, because I think our deficit is criminal.
EDIT:
Very informative, thank you. I believe the idea is to cut taxes on businesses (push back the diminishing returns cut-off for employee numbers profitability) and, essentially, raise taxes on the individual, like I state just above this edit. Not sure how that will all pan out, though. He's got to release the whole plan.
Black Mamba
Member
Mitt Romney will never release the $5 trillion numbers because they do not exist. You cannot reduce deductions on just the $200/250k+ income earners, thrown in economic growth, and then come up with $5 trillion in offsets. It is impossible from a mathematical standpoint and even the studies he talks about tonight agrees with my assessment.
And those models of economic growth are best-case scenarios with no real reason to believe as possible.
Romney either will blow up the deficit or reduce deductions on middle income earners and thus raise their taxes. These are the only options for such a large tax cut.
And those models of economic growth are best-case scenarios with no real reason to believe as possible.
Romney either will blow up the deficit or reduce deductions on middle income earners and thus raise their taxes. These are the only options for such a large tax cut.
speculawyer
Member
But payroll just went from $160K to $400K magically. How did that happen? Where did that money come from?
How about we charge 1% tax and we hire 300 million new workers! We'll get even more revenue! Wee!
Cutting tax rates doesn't make business magically grow. Demand makes businesses grow. If cutting taxes magically created growth then we would all be rich right now because of the massive growth from those Bush tax cuts.
Black Mamba
Member
Wrong: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
The 14% rate talked about is not a average income tax rate, it's an average FEDERAL tax rate, including Payroll and excise taxes. So while the bottom 90% pay lower in federal income taxes, not in TOTAL federal taxes, which was the original point that that author ignores.
Also, his 97% number isn't even right. over 10% pay over 14%. His figures make no sense probably because he's ignoring the retired based on the numbers he cite.
No, businesses like this still go through normal taxation a progressive scale. Your math is way off.
edit: I'd also like to mention that your example is nonsensical. In both scenarios there is $100k profit but one has 4 employees and the other has 10 for no reason. Why are you hiring 6 more people to provide zero added profit? This defies economics and common sense.
A President Romney most likely would have at the very least a Republican House and quite probably a Republican Senate. That is very different from governing a state dominated by liberal democrats. As a result, President Romney would very much need to govern to the right of where he was in Massachusetts. He would resemble the candidate he was in the Republican primaries far more than the person he was as governor.
I actually agree with what Romney seemed to imply in that right now the best way to close the deficit is to make sure the economy starts growing again. Unfortunately, tax cuts are by far the worst way to do that. They just don't stimulate enough economic activity, even in a depressed economy, to make up for the lost revenue caused by the tax cuts. This was the case when Reagan cut taxes, and when Bush II cut taxes.
Think of it this way. Your hypothetical company could use their savings from tax money to invest in hiring new workers. Or it could simply return the money to investors as profit. Companies are not going to hire new people if they don't think the new hires will result in increased revenue. Taxation does not affect that. What does affect that is government spending. Hiring a teacher will enable that person to purchase goods and services through their salary. Replicated many times throughout the economy, such a proces forces companies to hire new people in order to meet the increased demand. All government spending works the same way.
As I understand it, President Obama's plan is more stimulative than Romney's because it includes spending designed to create jobs, which will boost economic activity and cause more revenue to come into the federal government. The revenue won't be nearly enough to close the deficit, but at least it will put people back to work.
Eventually taxes will need to be raised, or spending will need to be cut, to close the deficit. That can't happen until the economy starts expanding enough to fully employ everyone though. In that, I do agree with Romney. I just think don't his policies will accomplish what he says they will. Frankly, I am not even sure how seriously to take him at this point. Especially considering the party he belongs to.
speculawyer
Member
No. He's going to lower the tax rate without cutting taxes and then raise taxes to create jobs.
It's all pretty straightforward.
Black Mamba
Member
lol, must be late since I missed this part.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll