Support NeoGAF

[SapientWolf]

This thread is about a bunch of biased loons arguing against each other.

To the liberals: It was Barack Obama's job to call Mitt Romney out on his lies during the debate. He did not do that. End of story.

To the conservatives: Mitt Romney did lie. He claimed that he will not reduce the taxes being paid by the rich. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004)

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Yet, on his campaign site, he's advocating for across the board tax cuts.

He did. Romney just brushed it off. He was glib and confident in the things he was saying, so it didn't even slow him down.

 

[nib95]

He won't get shit on for the economy, but will get shit on for his policies (by Republicans). 2006 and 2007 had under 5% unemployment and Bush still got a reaming for his policies (by Democrats).

That's because under Clinton there was the lowest unemployment in 30 years, longest economic expansion in US history, lowest crime rate in 26 years, higher incomes at all levels etc.

Bush royally fucked it.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Also, China has cut back big time on buying our debt, even become a net seller for a period of time. In 2011, the Fed pulled dollars out of thin air to buy almost a trillion dollars of debt, and this year, they are doing the same thing to buy mortgage-backed securities, essentially funneling money to banks on the backs of savers and those on fixed-incomes. US deficits this year are funded mostly by foreign investors (primarily Japan, Europe) and US households looking for a safe haven from the economic slowdown in Europe that is also being felt here - but QE3 is still indirectly funding the deficit to a large degree, since banks take the money they get from selling the securities and buy Treasuries with it.

The net result is asset inflation (which is why, for example, the stock market isn't dropping in the face of bad economic news) that, once the velocity of circulation picks up, is going to turn into a stagflation bomb...a bomb that is getting bigger with every round of QE.

I can understand why Obama doesn't seemed enthused about a second term, because the amount of shit queuing up to hit the fan is large and steadily growing.

What proof is there of asset inflation? The stock market doesn't count. That can easily be explained by record profits and an economy that is generally improving, if not at a very quick pace.

Not really sure what there is to contend about the claim.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-a...an-schultz-over-obamas-lack-of-accessibility/


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76601.html



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-to...aders-doesnt-seem-like-a-defensible-position/


Individual congress members can speak for themselves, but I don't recall too many press interviews and conferences relative to what I would expect.

It's the conceit of the press to think that taking questions from the media is somehow synonymous with having your views challenged. Does anyone think that all those Q&A sessions really challenged George W. Bush - a man whose administration brooked almost no dissent and actively tried to shout down those who disagreed? Obama does not strike me as someone who has cut himself off from his potential critics. Did you watch the bipartisan healthcare summit? He was masterful, coming across like he understood each and every potential opposition to his bill.

The real problem is that Obama is mediocre in the two minute debate format. You can tell that he is meticulous in gathering his thoughts and choosing his words carefully. Even though he had more time than Romney, I wouldn't be surprised if, judging by total word count, he actually said less. He is very good at explaining his ideas, but he took too long on some points and left others completely unchallenged, which meant he had little time to attack Romney directly. Add this to the fact that Romney had been preparing for days and Obama looked like he didn't even want to be there.

 

[NoirVisage]

why a dancing gif hasn't been made of this yet, i don't understand.

 

[deviljho]

 

[pigeon]

In that case, 7.8% would be the goal, since that was (iirc) the rate in January 2009. However, that doesn't really paint the whole picture. While at least getting back to 7.8% is promising...

1. A lot of those new jobs are McJobs

2. More people have dropped out of the workforce completely, so they push the unemployment percent down since they aren't counted anymore.


He won't get shit on for the economy, but will get shit on for his policies (by Republicans). 2006 and 2007 had under 5% unemployment and Bush still got a reaming for his policies (by Democrats).

If you start the clock in Feb 09 when he passed the stimulus, U-4 (including discouraged workers) is down today.

 

[deviljho]

If you start the clock in Feb 09 when he passed the stimulus, U-4 (including discouraged workers) is down today.

But Romney says the economy will automatically improve just by him being elected. Obama actually had to do something like pass a stimulus. It's magic, so Romney + 1

 

[Smashing Drive]

But Romney says the economy will automatically improve just by him being elected. Obama actually had to do something like pass a stimulus. It's magic, so Romney + 1

I feel like Obama is starting to doubt some of his own policies. Things like raising taxes on millonaires is probably the fair and right thing to do, but will it work?
The other one that stands out is reducing medicare payouts. It all sounds good but unintended consequences end up hurting job creators.
Romney is right.

Deep down I dont think Obama believes his own BS anymore.

 

[Kwixotik]

I go to the school where the VP debate is being held later this week. Campus looks like a war zone right now lol. Fences and concrete barriers everywhere.

 

[deviljho]

I feel like Obama is starting to doubt some of his own policies. Things like raising taxes on millonaires is probably the fair and right thing to do, but will it work?
The other one that stands out is reducing medicare payouts. It all sounds good but unintended consequences end up hurting job creators.
Romney is right.

Deep down I dont think Obama believes his own BS anymore.

wut? I'm talking about magic here. Ever heard the great Heart song Magic Mitt?

 

[Marvie_3]

I feel like Obama is starting to doubt some of his own policies. Things like raising taxes on millonaires is probably the fair and right thing to do, but will it work?
The other one that stands out is reducing medicare payouts. It all sounds good but unintended consequences end up hurting job creators.
Romney is right.

Deep down I dont think Obama believes his own BS anymore.

:lol :lol

 

[Kusagari]

I feel like Obama is starting to doubt some of his own policies. Things like raising taxes on millonaires is probably the fair and right thing to do, but will it work?
The other one that stands out is reducing medicare payouts. It all sounds good but unintended consequences end up hurting job creators.
Romney is right.

Deep down I dont think Obama believes his own BS anymore.

Amazing troll.

 

[Effnine]

In relation to the topics discussed during the debate, here's a nice breakdown by Simpsons/Family Guy animator Lucas Gray:

http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

 

[Klocker]

In relation to the topics discussed during the debate, here's a nice breakdown by Simpsons/Family Guy animator Lucas Gray:

http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

exactly


the theories on the right are greed based for the top earners (job creators my ass)


the middle class gets screwed by robber barons when there is not regulation. Always have. If it weren't for regulation and unions standing up for workers rights 100 years ago, we NEVER would have had a middle class. We would have had robber barons getting rich on the dead bodies of their workers much like the pharaohs of ancient times, Slave -like company owned labor.

Look at the the history... every major form of regulation has come at the expense of death or depravity of life for the sake of higher profits. (no fire codes, no safety, no civilized work rules hours and environmental spillage) all of these things had to be mandated so greedy owners would let loose of a few the profits for the good of the Nation. It was not that long ago 80-100years where it was like that.... the rich want those days back. Trickle down is a farce to keep poor people poor and get rich people more.

Hell richard Nixon, a staunch Republican, passed the Clean air and water act for crying out loud because companies were polluting with reckless abandon! The right has lost its way and been taken over by corporate america who is using social issues and simple word cues to sway the lower earning, right-leaning masses to vote against their own interests.

yea, I'm pissed.

Edit: FYI- I am a small business man with several employees

 

[Oblivion]

In relation to the topics discussed during the debate, here's a nice breakdown by Simpsons/Family Guy animator Lucas Gray:

http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

Wow, that was awesome.

 

[Smashing Drive]

Amazing troll.

LOL you searched my post history? now I feel like you're stalking me.

 

[Half and half]

Also shame on people hoping for the economy to tank so they can get Obama out of office. What kinda of American are you? so fucking weird :/.

Word up.

 

[Kusagari]

LOL you searched my post history? now I feel like you're stalking me.

No I've seen you in a couple threads lol.

 

[nib95]

In relation to the topics discussed during the debate, here's a nice breakdown by Simpsons/Family Guy animator Lucas Gray:

http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

Holy shit, amazing video. Wraps it up perfectly and concisely in a basic manner.

 

[deviljho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

 

[Partial Gamification]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

"The fascist tyrant you can trust, friend."

 

[GaimeGuy]

Man you guys are riled up about Romney's alleged lies. You know who has confirmed lied? Obama. Remember when he said unemployment would be 5.6 if they jammed through the "stimulus"? Remember when the American people would get to read bills online before they are passed? I don't recall being able to read the health care bill before hand. Heck even lawmakers didn't get to read it. Remember when the deficit would be cut in half? Yeah good stuff. Remember when Gitmo would be closed?

I know. Bush's fault!

Obama got crushed in the debate because his record is poor. He didn't do a lot of hope and change he ran on. He did the same stuff everyone else has done and in some instances worse. Its been 4 years and all he can say is how bad it was when he inherited it. What's the statute of limitations on that? If Obama wins does the next democratic nominee get to run on that too?

Every single analyst thought the peak unemployment for the recession would be 8-9%, and that the recovery would be much quicker than what we've seen. That doesn't mean the stimulus failed, that means the economists were wrong about predicting the future (as usual).

.

Obama came in at the end of January 2009, with over a million jobs being lost every month. I don't see how you can blame him for the slow recovery, especially when congress has failed to enact any significant economic measures over the last 2 years to hasten or help the recovery. The Jobs bill was killed in congress and that would have created another 1 million jobs. And even without the jobs bill, unemployment would be well below 7% if state governments had not followed the european model of austerity measures during a recession. But Obama has no control over that.


Now, with regards to the health care bill.

There have been dozens of versions of health care reforrm proposed over the last 30-40 years. The PPACA was not made from scratch, but by recycling previous ideas from a multitude of sources, combining them, tweaking them, and adding to them. Furthermore, over 1 year was spent on the bill, and throughout the entire process, there were press conferences, conference committees, joint sessions of congress, interviews, debates, amendments, and over half a dozen drafts passed through committee, unicamerally, and, finally, bicamerally (as is the process for almost all pieces of legislation.), again, with debates, amendments, discussions, and briefings over each revision.

All of which you had access to via govtrack.us, senate.gov, gpo.gov, and house.gov throughout the entire process.


Now, Guantanemo Bay...
Obama issued an executive order that ordered Guantanemo Bay closed, and the people being held there be transferred to the civilian court system.

In response, congress, which authorizes all uses of funds throughout the federal government, passed a law forbidding the government from using any funding to close Guantanemo Bay, or to transfer its inmates to the civilian prison/court system. Meaning, the only legal course of action the executive branch has is to continue to operate Guantanemo Bay, and continue the practices of indefinite detention and military tribunals (or release the inmates).

So again, Obama can't close Guantanemo Bay. Congress made it illegal for him to do so.


Please don't just regurgitate bullshit. Go take a junior high/high school civics class, you should know better than to believe that the president created an act of congress, as you insinuate with your health care criticism.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I think this is my favorite liberal meltdown over Obama's humiliation.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/hbc-90008926

Maybe he really is a secret Muslim terrorist from Kenya.

I mean, think about it. He runs for president as a populist, soaking up all the liberal energy for change in the country. Once in power, he surrounds himself with failed conservative advisers, and squanders most of his mandate. Then, just as it looks as if he will still be able to defeat his clueless Republican opponent, he turns in the worst performance any presidential candidate has ever given in a general-election debate, tanking the race and turning the country over to a party of fanatical Ayn Rand acolytes and warmongers.

Homeland’s Abu Nazir never dreamed up anything this diabolical.

I know, it’s not very funny. Neither was Barack Obama’s noneffort last night. Nor am I joking about his performance being the worst in the history of presidential debates. In fact, it was the worst debate by any candidate in either the presidential or the vice-presidential debates. And I include Dan Quayle’s performance in 1988, and that poor, befuddled admiral who was running with Ross Perot.

Who would have thought that Barack Obama would come off as the candidate with a hollow core?

Yet there he was, giving a presentation devoid of substance, vision, principle, or even basic coherence. He didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his “five boys” used to tell.

How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.

 

[pigeon]

I think this is my favorite liberal meltdown over Obama's humiliation.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/hbc-90008926

That guy could use a vacation.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

What's amazing is that as downbeat a performance as Obama gave, he still won. The GOP had one night of celebration and then wham, the debate is now known as the Big Bird Debate. The polls dipped a little but the fact is that Obama has a 7% better chance of winning than he did 18 days ago. He was 73% to win then, now he's 80%.

Romney got handed a big present that said "Debate Win!" on the tag. He opened it up and inside was a piece of paper that said "LOL JK --Obama".

 

[User Name Here]

"when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his “five boys” used to tell."

Wow, someone actually picked up on that.

 

[teh_pwn]

I feel like Obama is starting to doubt some of his own policies. Things like raising taxes on millonaires is probably the fair and right thing to do, but will it work?
The other one that stands out is reducing medicare payouts. It all sounds good but unintended consequences end up hurting job creators.
Romney is right.

Deep down I dont think Obama believes his own BS anymore.

Of course it would work. We did it in the 1950s-1970s. The debt was 100% GDP. By the 1970s not only had we nearly paid it off by taxing the wealthy 50+%, but we had booming science and infrastructure, low unemployment

When has low taxes and high spending ever worked? Reagan doesn't count because he basically spent his entire administration stimulusing an economy that didn't need it, and exploded the debt. Sure, Obama did this, but he's planning on cutting back and paying off the debt now that the economy is rebounding...Romney? Balls deep liberal spending on tax breaks and military adventurism. The guy would bankrupt the United States and make it extremely vulnerable to a global fiscal crisis, like a potential one in Europe. If you're 150+% GDP in debt things begin to fall apart because nobody will buy your bonds or you hyperinflate.

 

[teh_pwn]

In that case, 7.8% would be the goal, since that was (iirc) the rate in January 2009. However, that doesn't really paint the whole picture. While at least getting back to 7.8% is promising...

1. A lot of those new jobs are McJobs

2. More people have dropped out of the workforce completely, so they push the unemployment percent down since they aren't counted anymore.


He won't get shit on for the economy, but will get shit on for his policies (by Republicans). 2006 and 2007 had under 5% unemployment and Bush still got a reaming for his policies (by Democrats).

The recovery was slower than expected because most American companies right now are building forts out of cash because they're afraid of what might happen in Europe. Europe is contracting heavily in terms of purchasing and manufacturing because they're not really a union..German and French banks made irrational loans (that should be illegal, honestly) to Greece and Spain which cannot pay it back and so they're fighting over whether to bail them out. If American fought over whether or not we should subsidize Mississippi, we'd be just as fucked.

 

[teh_pwn]

This thread is about a bunch of biased loons arguing against each other.

To the liberals: It was Barack Obama's job to call Mitt Romney out on his lies during the debate. He did not do that. End of story.

To the conservatives: Mitt Romney did lie. He claimed that he will not reduce the taxes being paid by the rich. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-first-debate-mitt-romneys-five-biggest-lies-20121004)

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Yet, on his campaign site, he's advocating for across the board tax cuts.

What's depressing is that the news media that's supposed to be journalistic and impartial gave this a "half true". In other words, he would cut the taxes by 5 trillion, but he would make up for it "somehow". As if having a plan to offset tax cuts makes the tax cuts not exist. It's absolutely ridiculous how journalism is now CNN's dumb forced centrist position no matter what the situation is. Romney hasn't explained how he'd make up for the 5 trillion, which is sort of mandatory to be taken seriously as he's running for President. Instead of 5 trillion in cuts, we need 5 trillion in surplus if we want to seriously pay of the national debt. But then again the GOP are not fiscal conservatives.

 

[besada]

I think this is my favorite liberal meltdown over Obama's humiliation.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/hbc-90008926

Diablos writes for Harpers?

 

[Smashing Drive]

Of course it would work. We did it in the 1950s-1970s. The debt was 100% GDP. By the 1970s not only had we nearly paid it off by taxing the wealthy 50+%, but we had booming science and infrastructure, low unemployment

When has low taxes and high spending ever worked?

Well it works to reduce unemployment. That's what we need right now is a fast recovery and then worry about bringing down the debt with a broader tax base. That's Romney's plan.

 

[pigeon]

For the next debate: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=494714

 

[maharg]

Well it works to reduce unemployment. That's what we need right now is a fast recovery and then worry about bringing down the debt with a broader tax base. That's Romney's plan.

'Broader tax base' from Romney is basically code for tax the poor and the middle class more. Yeah, that'll help the economy.

 

[ISOM]

I think this is my favorite liberal meltdown over Obama's humiliation.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/hbc-90008926

My favorite conservative meltdown hasn't happened yet, I can't wait until november 8th.

 

[SapientWolf]

What's depressing is that the news media that's supposed to be journalistic and impartial gave this a "half true". In other words, he would cut the taxes by 5 trillion, but he would make up for it "somehow". As if having a plan to offset tax cuts makes the tax cuts not exist. It's absolutely ridiculous how journalism is now CNN's dumb forced centrist position no matter what the situation is. Romney hasn't explained how he'd make up for the 5 trillion, which is sort of mandatory to be taken seriously as he's running for President. Instead of 5 trillion in cuts, we need 5 trillion in surplus if we want to seriously pay of the national debt. But then again the GOP are not fiscal conservatives.

Romney mentioned that his tax policies would grow the economy and create jobs, which would expand the tax base. Thus covering the gap. But I don't think that cash is the bottleneck for business growth right now. They're stockpiling cash, for the most part. The problem is the lack of domestic growth opportunities because of downbeat consumer spending. Unless that problem is solved, those tax savings could very well end up being spent overseas in emergent markets.

In other words, businesses won't hire unless they can get a return on investment. They're not the job corps.

I also noticed that Romney was quoting statistics from the NFIB. I'm not convinced that they're an impartial source of information when it comes to taxes.