Support NeoGAF

[Snowden's Secret]

Reading through some analyses and someone brought up a good point: while it's pretty clear Romney dominated last night (both Obama and the Jim) Obama came away with maybe 10 substantive attack ads on Romney, while Romney doesn't really have anything on Obama.

-Cut PBS
-Vouchers
-Blatantly untrue "facts"
-Repeatedly issuing no specifics

 

[Jezbollah]

As a UKer, I havent seen the full debate yet. But from what I've seen the credit given to Romney is similar to the credit given to Nick Clegg in the first of our live televised debates prior to our election in 2010.

Basically, a lot of people either hadn't given Clegg the time of day before then or had not heard his way of speaking to the camera or heard his points, and he got a bump in popularity because of it.

Not saying Romney is a great comparison to this, but low expectations tend to surprise more than often.

 

[Zampano]

But who would win in a fist fight?

 

[thefro]

This is the real key to this debate. Romney just gave Obama everything he needs for Florida adverts on medicare. He just gave everything Obama needs for Ohio adverts on further bad math.

He sat back and let Romney run away from his own previous quotes. Its too late for Romney to run to the middle now, he's given too much red meat to the base in the last few months that can be off-set with this debate to torch him in key swing states.

Yep, in a couple weeks people are going to realize it was a pyrrhic victory for Romney.

 

[gdt]

I'm dreading work today haha.

Obama should've woke the fuck up, and started calling Romney on more of his bullshit last night.

 

[Xdrive05]

Does anybody expect Obama in these debates to go for the "low hanging fruit" attack-ad material of 47%, Bain Capital, etc.? And if he does, do you think it will it backfire on an angry-black-man perception?

 

[massoluk]

Romney squeaked out a victory, but the margin is razor thin. The loser is Jim Lehrer. Dude can't moderate shit. He didn't enforce time limit, he let both Mitt and Barack rolled over him, he let both get away with bullshit, the question get wayyyy derailed.

But really not much change with the debate, no major revelation, no zing, nothing.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Does anybody expect Obama in these debates to go for the "low hanging fruit" attack-ad material of 47%, Bain Capital, etc.? And if he does, do you think it will it backfire on an angry-black-man perception?

It occurred to me that Romney may have been baiting him so he could return the volley with a prepared response. Still, there's nothing wrong with hanging an opponent with their own words. It's just got be in a natural sounding context, rather than leaping on him out of nowhere.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

HAHAHAHA:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

First bullet point:

"Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit."

Second bullet point:

"Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit."

So... Obama lied about Romney's $5 trillion because Romney said the $5 trillion isn't true but Romney is lying about the $5 trillion because $5 trillion is accurate.

jackiechanfulloffuck.jpg

 

[mashoutposse]

When will these two elephants in the room be properly called out by Obama?

Tax Cuts as Job Creation Tool?

1) Corporate income taxes are assessed on net profits, after all payroll spending (and any other cost/expense). Income taxes never factor into the equation for any business-related spending. Ironically, higher tax rates incentivize profitable businesses to hire and pay more and reinvest more aggressively since the cost of the new employee (or any expenditure) is discounted by the raw (not effective) income tax rate. The lower the tax rate, the lower the incentive. (Think about a 100% tax rate vs. a 0% rate).

2) Businesses typically only hire employees when demand for their products and services outstrips their capacity to meet it. Lower taxes only serve to lower the cost of hoarding profits.

 

[Drek]

When will these two elephants in the room be properly called out by Obama?

Tax Cuts as Job Creation Tool?

1) Corporate income taxes are assessed on net profits, after all payroll spending (and any other cost/expense). Income taxes never factor into the equation for any business-related spending. Ironically, higher tax rates incentivize profitable businesses to hire and pay more and reinvest more aggressively since the cost of the new employee (or any expenditure) is discounted by the raw (not effective) income tax rate. The lower the tax rate, the lower the incentive. (Think about a 100% tax rate vs. a 0% rate).

2) Businesses typically only hire employees when demand for their products and services outstrips their capacity to meet it. Lower taxes only serve to lower the cost of hoarding profits.

Unfortunately that goes counter to how the average person sees it, and is therefore hard to sell.

 

[Volimar]

HAHAHAHA:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

First bullet point:

"Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit."

Second bullet point:

"Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit."

So... Obama lied about Romney's $5 trillion because Romney said the $5 trillion isn't true but Romney is lying about the $5 trillion because $5 trillion is accurate.

jackiechanfulloffuck.jpg

How can they even check the facts when he changes his position so often.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

When will these two elephants in the room be properly called out by Obama?

Tax Cuts as Job Creation Tool?

1) Corporate income taxes are assessed on net profits, after all payroll spending (and any other cost/expense). Income taxes never factor into the equation for any business-related spending. Ironically, higher tax rates incentivize profitable businesses to hire and pay more and reinvest more aggressively since the cost of the new employee (or any expenditure) is discounted by the raw (not effective) income tax rate. The lower the tax rate, the lower the incentive. (Think about a 100% tax rate vs. a 0% rate).

2) Businesses typically only hire employees when demand for their products and services outstrips their capacity to meet it. Lower taxes only serve to lower the cost of hoarding profits.

Doesn't Apple and Exxon pay some crazy low tax rate on all those profits using loopholes? Seems like just making the rate higher wouldn't affect them much.

 

[Jarmel]

John Kerry was Obama's debate coach. lol.

Kerry fucking things up beyond the grave.

 

[Oblivion]

Romney's Muddled Message On Medicare and Vouchers

 

[mashoutposse]

Unfortunately that goes counter to how the average person sees it, and is therefore hard to sell.

The time and effort needs to invested in educating the masses. Tax cuts as a chief driver of positive business activity is a widely-held misconception that needs to be dispelled once and for all.

 

[Akainu]

Someone said that Romney changed what he had been campaigning on just last night. Is that right?

 

[mashoutposse]

Doesn't Apple and Exxon pay some crazy low tax rate on all those profits using loopholes? Seems like just making the rate higher wouldn't affect them much.

With income taxes, the choice facing businesses is this: Reinvest your profits into your business or forfeit it to the IRS.

Making the tax rate higher makes it more expensive to stash away their billions and incentivizes them to pump it back into the economy through hires and R&D and general expansion.

 

[SteveWD40]

Obama got "beat" in a debate? by Romney?

Maybe Obama see's no threat and is apathetic? Will Romneys "wrong but strong" rhetoric actually swing anything in his favour?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Obama got "beat" in a debate? by Romney?

Maybe Obama see's no threat and is apathetic? Will Romneys "wrong but strong" rhetoric actually swing anything in his favour?

Romney was incredibly well prepared and traded barbs way more effectively and aggressively than in the primaries. I think Obama was successful in showing Romney won't give you straight answers on anything and insinuating that he doesn't really have any convictions. Also, Romney was right on the edge of being TOO aggressive, which is a big negative in debates

 

[IrishNinja]

Also, Romney was right on the edge of being TOO aggressive, which is a big negative in debates

see...i thought he crossed that line cutting off the moderator for his like 3rd rebuttal while obama did so in a shorter manner & trying to play it cool...but if this thread is to be believed, obama should've gone at it harder.

admittedly, he held back the 47% and other ammo...but the only one i regret him not speaking on was the ryan talking point of medicare $ etc etc, he let that slide on multiple occasions where a harder debate would've been on that shit like stink on a monkey

 

[massoluk]

Romney won, but there's not really anything I heard that will change people opinion one way or another.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

There's a point to be made about Romney being too aggressive, especially with Lehrer. The only time Lehrer grew a backbone is when Romney pushed him so much he had to step on it with the "Let's not," which made Romney look petulant.

 

[Dreamcaster]

Does anybody expect Obama in these debates to go for the "low hanging fruit" attack-ad material of 47%, Bain Capital, etc.? And if he does, do you think it will it backfire on an angry-black-man perception?

He probably didn't go after these because they are the most likely talking points and the items Romney will most likely have boilerplate answers to turn them back on Obama in some way.

Romney won, but there's not really anything I heard that will change people opinion one way or another.

Politics is theater. Perception is reality in the mind of the voter.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

I enjoyed watching this much more than I thought I would, although my vote is more or less already decided. I'm voting for Romney because I believe he's the only candidate that cares about the only industry that matters in this area of the country (coal mining; which also happens to be the industry that employs me). Every time Obama talks about supporting "American energy" it just comes off as a complete and total lie to me.

 

[Dude Abides]

I enjoyed watching this much more than I thought I would, although my vote is more or less already decided. I'm voting for Romney because I believe he's the only candidate that cares about the only industry that matters in this area of the country (coal mining; which also happens to be the industry that employs me). Every time Obama talks about supporting "American energy" it just comes off as a complete and total lie to me.

What did mountaintops ever do to you?

When Obama refers to American energy he means new environmentally friendly tech, not ancient dirty tech.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

What did mountaintops ever do to you?

When Obama refers to American energy he means new environmentally friendly tech, not ancient dirty tech.

I'm guessing you've never visited southwest VA, huh?

That "ancient dirty tech" that you so adamantly despise is the only thing keeping thousands of people in this area of the country from being jobless. If Obama can tell me how he plans on supplying jobs to this area of the country after he removes the only ones that exist then maybe I'll be more likely to listen to what he has to say.

 

[scorcho]

At the least we can infer from debates that PBS accounts for trillions of our budget each year. It's a wonder why Romney hasn't been more open with the programs or waste he'd cut - PBS alone could solve our budget woes.

 

[Lyude77]

I enjoyed watching this much more than I thought I would, although my vote is more or less already decided. I'm voting for Romney because I believe he's the only candidate that cares about the only industry that matters in this area of the country (coal mining; which also happens to be the industry that employs me). Every time Obama talks about supporting "American energy" it just comes off as a complete and total lie to me.

Neither president would (or could) get rid of/significantly reduce coal mining in four (or eight) years.

Presidents don't have that kind of authority, and there would be job-killing complaints blocking it in congress.

It's like how I think that anyone who cared about Ron Paul's stance on drug legalization was misguided - he can't change something that most people in Congress/with money are resistant to.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

At the least we can infer from debates that PBS accounts for trillions of our budget each year. It's a wonder why Romney hasn't been more open with the programs or waste he'd cut - PBS alone could solve our budget woes.

What's big bird's salary?

 

[The Technomancer]

At the least we can infer from debates that PBS accounts for trillions of our budget each year. It's a wonder why Romney hasn't been more open with the programs or waste he'd cut - PBS alone could solve our budget woes.

I wouldn't be surprised if PBS backfires on him, hard. Its not like NPR where there may be a perception of "that liberal news station", PBS is pretty universally popular

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I'm guessing you've never visited southwest VA, huh?

That "ancient dirty tech" that you so adamantly despise is the only thing keeping thousands of people in this area of the country from being jobless. If Obama can tell me how he plans on supplying jobs to this area of the country after he removes the only ones that exist then maybe I'll be more likely to listen to what he has to say.

How is Obama going to remove your job? and how is Romney going to sustain it?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Presidents don't have that kind of authority, and there would be job-killing complaints blocking it.

This just isn't true; Obama's policies are doing it right now and with four more years of this the entire central Appalachian region of the US will reach a level of poverty unlike anything it's ever seen.

How is Obama going to remove your job? and how is Romney going to sustain it?

Through the EPA and MSHA. I really think it's crazy that you guys are even trying to debate this issue with me, I literally live it on a daily basis. 90% of my job is working directly with government agencies.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

This just isn't true; Obama's policies are doing it right now and with four more years of this the entire central Appalachian region of the US will reach a level of poverty unlike anything it's ever seen.


Through the EPA and MSHA.

If coal is so clean then why are you worried about the EPA?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

If coal is so clean then why are you worried about the EPA?

The EPA has already made it impossible for new coal powered plants to be built and is also forcing many into early retirement. It's something that sounds great to a supporter of green energy who isn't familiar with this area of the country but coal is literally the only industry that people have here.

And coal is currently dirtier than natural gas or any green alternatives; I'm not debating that issue. But, I personally believe we need all of the above, and not Obama's "all of the above" which means everything but coal.

 

[IrishNinja]

What's big bird's salary?

if trickle-down has taught us anything, it should be at least six figures above oscar

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm guessing you've never visited southwest VA, huh?

That "ancient dirty tech" that you so adamantly despise is the only thing keeping thousands of people in this area of the country from being jobless. If Obama can tell me how he plans on supplying jobs to this area of the country after he removes the only ones that exist then maybe I'll be more likely to listen to what he has to say.

Nope, grew up in Western PA coal country though.

It sucks that new technology and improved environmental standards result in phasing out of those jobs. I was just clarifying what Obama means when he discusses that.

Obama does also talk about the "clean coal" sham though. Isn't that reassuring?

Edit: anti-MSHA guy eh? Yay for blacklung!

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Obama does also talk about the "clean coal" sham though. Isn't that reassuring?

Nope.

 

[Lyude77]

The EPA has already made it impossible for new coal powered plants to be built and is also forcing many into early retirement. It's something that sounds great to a supporter of green energy who isn't familiar with this area of the country but coal is literally the only industry that people have here.

And coal is currently dirtier than natural gas or any green alternatives; I'm not debating that issue. But, I personally believe we need all of the above, and not Obama's "all of the above" which means everything but coal.

Okay, I thought you were saying he was actually going to pass new legislation, but it's just the EPA that you're talking about. Never mind, carry on.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

The EPA has already made it impossible for new coal powered plants to be built and is also forcing many into early retirement. It's something that sounds great to a supporter of green energy who isn't familiar with this area of the country but coal is literally the only industry that people have here.

Then they should leave, not waste their lives propping up a dead form of energy. These jobs will go away some day no matter who the president is in 2013.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Then they should leave, not waste their lives propping up a dead form of energy. These jobs will go away some day no matter who the president is in 2013.

This is exactly the attitude that makes almost everyone in this region despise Obama.

 

[Il Piccolo Fiammiferaio]

from everything I see in the newspapers, usa next president will be romney!
eh.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

This is exactly the attitude that makes almost everyone in this region despise Obama.

i guess it IS difficult to make a man understand something when his job depends on not understanding it

 

[Volimar]

Then they should leave, not waste their lives propping up a dead form of energy. These jobs will go away some day no matter who the president is in 2013.

Easy to say, hard to do. These people may not be trained to do anything else, and for many of them working coal mines is a point of family pride. It's not easy to walk away based on decisions of some government agency that doesn't speak for you.

That said, coal probably has a place in our energy future for quite some time, but eventually it will phase out. All those telegraph operators had to give that up too as technology progressed.

 

[Arksy]

I was not expecting the media to be calling this a win for Romney (In fact there were a few outlets calling it for Obama before it had even happened). I'm quite shocked. I'm going to have to watch this debate when I get home in a few hours.

 

[PhoenixDark]

There's an article in the latest Time about the coal industry's struggles under the Obama EPA, this isn't some new thing. My problem with the administration's approach is that they view coal through a vaccum that basically says coal is broken and needs major changes...but instead of fixing it we'll kill it and build something different at a later date. That doesn't take into account the people who struggle and work there right now. They don't have the luxury of waiting for change

If Obama wants to support "clean" coal he should do something about it; you don't need a comprehensive energy policy to help those folks out. I get the impression that this is more about pleasing environmentalists than helping struggling people transition to something else. Manufacturing is dying in the Midwest but the region hasn't been abandoned - in fact it's being helped. Why not help states that completely rely on coal?

I'm a liberal but I'm not an environmentalist

 

[teruterubozu]

Body language says a lot to people - it's louder than words.

Obama looked tired, like the President's job was kicking his ass. He needs to look invigorated. He cannot have a repeat performance like that (I don't think he will).

 

[scorcho]

I was not expecting the media to be calling this a win for Romney (In fact there were a few outlets calling it for Obama before it had even happened). I'm quite shocked. I'm going to have to watch this debate when I get home in a few hours.

I can't understand how anyone watching that debate could make a case that Romney didn't have a stronger night - both with the volume on or off. Seriously. He commanded the screen more and was able to give concise, forceful responses when even while stepping all over the moderator and Obama.

It's sad that these things are rated primarily on performance instead of substance, but there you go.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

That said, coal probably has a place in our energy future for quite some time, but eventually it will phase out. All those telegraph operators had to give that up too as technology progressed.

Which is fine, but I would like to see some type of plan to bring more jobs to this area of the country before all the existing ones are forcefully phased out. Off-shore wind farms are not going to provide jobs to this area of the country, you know what I mean?

Let me be clear; I work for a coal company but I'm a recent college graduate and my degree is in Mining Engineering which actually covers much more than most people might expect (in other words, I have plenty of options besides coal). Obviously I am still biased on the issue because I am currently working in coal but the job market for mining engineers is typically pretty stable and I don't think it would be too difficult for me to find a job in another mining industry if it came to that. More than anything I just hate the complete disregard that is given to the people who work in the mines and literally have nothing to fall back on. Seeing 50 year old guys with a wife and three kids losing their $80,000 a year job as a result of this administration's policies just doesn't jive with me, particularly when many of these people don't have any formal education beyond high school and therefore no other job options (especially in the immediate area).

There's an article in the latest Time about the coal industry's struggles under the Obama EPA, this isn't some new thing. My problem with the administration's approach is that they view coal through a vaccum that basically says coal is broken and needs major changes...but instead of fixing it we'll kill it and build something different at a later date. That doesn't take into account the people who struggle and work there right now. They don't have the luxury of waiting for change

If Obama wants to support "clean" coal he should do something about it; you don't need a comprehensive energy policy to help those folks out. I get the impression that this is more about pleasing environmentalists than helping struggling people transition to something else. Manufacturing is dying in the Midwest but the region hasn't been abandoned - in fact it's being helped. Why not help states that completely rely on coal?

I'm a liberal but I'm not an environmentalist

You nailed it.

 

[Arksy]

I can't understand how anyone watching that debate could make a case that Romney didn't have a stronger night - both with the volume on or off. Seriously. He commanded the screen more and was able to give concise, forceful responses when even while stepping all over the moderator and Obama.

It's sad that these things are rated primarily on performance instead of substance, but there you go.

Unfortunately politics around the world seems to be more focused on style than substance at the moment. I'm speaking from the POV of an Australian, accusing both the left and right in my country of the same thing. It's quite pathetic.