Thread: Second Presidential Debate

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

LOL! Obama definitely stunk tonight.

Hardly. I think they both had some very good moments, and both some bad moments. I think the Libya portion was strong for the President and Romney should have backed down there. I think Romney did well hitting on his economic plan outline or outline of his plan. Overall tonight was a draw in my opinion. Obama did what he needed to do, compared to his poor showing in the first debate. Romney stayed the course.

At the end of the day, tonight may not even impact the polls. I think it stops the bleeding from the Obama camp, which the VP debate seems to have impacted slightly. This is going to be a photo finish race, which makes things like this exciting.

Originally Posted by diggyba

Romney: if I am elected I'll create jobs.

5 minutes later...

Romney: government does not create jobs.

Might help if you listened to exactly what he said. Romney said he would create jobs, but not Government Jobs.

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

LOL! Obama definitely stunk tonight.

Originally Posted by venture79

Hardly. I think they both had some very good moments, and both some bad moments. I think the Libya portion was strong for the President and Romney should have backed down there. I think Romney did well hitting on his economic plan outline or outline of his plan. Overall tonight was a draw in my opinion. Obama did what he needed to do, compared to his poor showing in the first debate. Romney stayed the course.

At the end of the day, tonight may not even impact the polls. I think it stops the bleeding from the Obama camp, which the VP debate seems to have impacted slightly. This is going to be a photo finish race, which makes things like this exciting.

Well, at least one person saw the same debate I did.....

Originally Posted by Bunty

Yes, Romney, as Obama pointed out, would like to take us back to the bad economic times when gas was $1.80 a gallon.

yea, that buck eighty gas really sucked...

looked pretty even to me

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I wondered what had become of that guy!

Originally Posted by CaptDave

FACT CHECK: Stumbles in latest presidential debate - Yahoo! News

How come no fact check on the pipeline around the world?

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

He'll create jobs by removing restrictions that prohibit job creation for
the private sector.

It's not the business of government to create jobs. It's never been
the business of government to create jobs.

Romney was right on.

Do you have another objections that can be handled this easily?

Is this how Romney will create or save jobs?

ROMNEY: "I know he keeps saying, 'You want to take Detroit bankrupt.' Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened."

THE FACTS: What Romney recommended did not happen, and his proposed path probably would have forced General Motors and Chrysler out of business. He opposed using government money to bail out the automakers, instead favoring privately financed bankruptcy restructuring. But the automakers were bleeding cash and were poor credit risks. The banking system was in crisis. So private loans weren't available. Without government aid, both companies probably would have gone under and their assets sold in pieces.

Originally Posted by BlackmoreRulz

yea, that buck eighty gas really sucked...

Here is how I took the comment. The economy was so poor, people weren't buying enough gas, that supply was sky rocketing over demand. So prices were lower. Demand is higher now, so prices have gone up.

I think $1.80 gas is just a pipe dream anymore. The main goals now need to be energy independence and increased fuel efficiency. Oil and gas companies don't want the prices at the pump to drop, because that hurts profits. If prices fall, they'll cut production. So it is what it is. I definitely don't want to see the Fed come in and stipulate what pricing should be, so the free market just has to let it play out.

Originally Posted by venture79

Here is how I took the comment. The economy was so poor, people weren't buying enough gas, that supply was sky rocketing over demand. So prices were lower. Demand is higher now, so prices have gone up.

I think $1.80 gas is just a pipe dream anymore. The main goals now need to be energy independence and increased fuel efficiency. Oil and gas companies don't want the prices at the pump to drop, because that hurts profits. If prices fall, they'll cut production. So it is what it is. I definitely don't want to see the Fed come in and stipulate what pricing should be, so the free market just has to let it play out.

Right now, refined gasoline from the U.S. is a big export to Europe, which is one of the reasons the price is up. The more than can ship to Europe, the less of a glut thus the price stays high.

Last night at the Crowley Mansion

((these guys are fascinating . . .))
o
o
o

Originally Posted by Bellaboo

Right now, refined gasoline from the U.S. is a big export to Europe, which is one of the reasons the price is up. The more than can ship to Europe, the less of a glut thus the price stays high.

Yeah. So wouldn't it be something to say if we were truly to be energy independent, we would have to almost stop most energy exports to fill our needs first? Which I don't think energy companies would go for.

Originally Posted by Roadhawg

The banking system was in crisis. So private loans weren't available.

I think this is a major point that keeps getting overlooked in the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" discussion. Loans were almost unavailable on all levels. My wife and I were shopping for a car during that time. Even though the only debt we had was our house payment and our credit history was excellent, the car dealer was doubtful that they'd be able to find a loan for us. They said, "They're turning everyone down." Luckily, our credit union (where we had money on deposit) approved us. On top of that, people's home values were dropping like a rock and our 401K plans were losing money at an alarming rate. Fast forward to today...money is moving again. Several times a week I get offers for pre-approved loans. My house value has stabilized and my 401K is showing growth at very close to what it was prior to the financial collapse. Are things the best they've ever been? Uh...no, they're not. But they are VASTLY better than they were 4 years ago after the last Republican president left office.

Originally Posted by TaoMaas

I think this is a major point that keeps getting overlooked in the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" discussion. Loans were almost unavailable on all levels. My wife and I were shopping for a car during that time. Even though the only debt we had was our house payment and our credit history was excellent, the car dealer was doubtful that they'd be able to find a loan for us. They said, "They're turning everyone down." Luckily, our credit union (where we had money on deposit) approved us. On top of that, people's home values were dropping like a rock and our 401K plans were losing money at an alarming rate. Fast forward to today...money is moving again. Several times a week I get offers for pre-approved loans. My house value has stabilized and my 401K is showing growth at very close to what it was prior to the financial collapse. Are things the best they've ever been? Uh...no, they're not. But they are VASTLY better than they were 4 years ago after the last Republican president left office.

I think something that gets overlooked, and I deal with this on a daily basis through my work. People today expect instant gratification. We don't call people anymore, we text. We don't write letters, we email - though that is getting too slow. We overall have very little patience for people to work on something for us or for things that might slow them down.

Could the economy have recovered faster by now? Probably a bit more, but I think some are in a fantasy world on how fast they think things can work. A lot of things are screwed up right now, especially being in a true global economy. Unless we totally isolate ourselves, we don't really have a lot of control anymore. Am I better than I was 4 years ago? Depends on which angle. My house value is definitely higher. Professionally things have been improving over the last year. My bills haven't really skyrocketed that much. So I'm doing pretty well right now.

Originally Posted by venture79

Hardly. I think they both had some very good moments, and both some bad moments. I think the Libya portion was strong for the President and Romney should have backed down there. I think Romney did well hitting on his economic plan outline or outline of his plan. Overall tonight was a draw in my opinion. Obama did what he needed to do, compared to his poor showing in the first debate. Romney stayed the course.

At the end of the day, tonight may not even impact the polls. I think it stops the bleeding from the Obama camp, which the VP debate seems to have impacted slightly. This is going to be a photo finish race, which makes things like this exciting.

I agree for the most part but think the President won the night by a small margin. Romney's inability to give any specifics with regard to what loopholes and cuts he would make to account for his tax cuts is just a killer for me. Why can't he give ANY specifics? If he'd had his stuff together on this issue I think he would have won last night.

Originally Posted by Lord Helmet

I agree for the most part but think the President won the night by a small margin. Romney's inability to give any specifics with regard to what loopholes and cuts he would make to account for his tax cuts is just a killer for me. Why can't he give ANY specifics? If he'd had his stuff together on this issue I think he would have won last night.

Well I'm glad had his 5-point plan ready to go, but in reality we've heard about it during the Primary season. So it seems he is finally jumping back to pushing it.

Tax cuts, that either side present, are all going to be about presentation. They want to both be revenue neutral. Honestly, if you have debt to pay down you can't cut the amount of money you bring in or you'll never pay it off. That is basic home economics 101. The problem for Romney specifically is he can't come out and say what exemptions and loopholes he'll get rid of because at the end of the day, they could result in a net zero change for tax payers. Which of course is what revenue neutral is all about.

Cutting tax RATES by 20% is great and something no one will disagree with. We all like lower tax rates. However, that is not the same as cutting taxes PAID by 20%. Say he gets rid of the mortgage tax credit, to some that may eliminate a good chunk of that 20% rate cute. Get rid of the education tax credit, that can be another big chunk. I too would like to just see the exact math on how you bridge the divide. Unfortunately I don't see us balancing the budget again until we see a massive upswing in the economy, but we also have to be careful of another Dot Com bubble that hurt many people.

Originally Posted by venture79

Yeah. So wouldn't it be something to say if we were truly to be energy independent, we would have to almost stop most energy exports to fill our needs first? Which I don't think energy companies would go for.

True, but you can't blame them for getting what the market will pay for their product.

Originally Posted by Bellaboo

True, but you can't blame them for getting what the market will pay for their product.

Not at all. Which brings to question, can we really be energy independent if US oil/gas producers would rather chase higher profits outside the US than to keep the product here?

Originally Posted by venture79

Cutting tax RATES by 20% is great and something no one will disagree with. We all like lower tax rates. However, that is not the same as cutting taxes PAID by 20%. Say he gets rid of the mortgage tax credit, to some that may eliminate a good chunk of that 20% rate cute. Get rid of the education tax credit, that can be another big chunk. I too would like to just see the exact math on how you bridge the divide. Unfortunately I don't see us balancing the budget again until we see a massive upswing in the economy, but we also have to be careful of another Dot Com bubble that hurt many people.

You are exactly right. This is also why it's an urban legend that Reagan cut taxes. He cut tax RATES, but raised the actual amount of taxes many people paid by quite a bit. And it was all done just as you described...by eliminating deductions. This was when I switched from being a Republican to a Democrat, btw. I saw first-hand that I was being hood-winked by what had been my party up to that point.

Originally Posted by venture79

Not at all. Which brings to question, can we really be energy independent if US oil/gas producers would rather chase higher profits outside the US than to keep the product here?

Not without some gub'mint getting involved.

Originally Posted by TaoMaas

You are exactly right. This is also why it's an urban legend that Reagan cut taxes. He cut tax RATES, but raised the actual amount of taxes many people paid by quite a bit. And it was all done just as you described...by eliminating deductions. This was when I switched from being a Republican to a Democrat, btw. I saw first-hand that I was being hood-winked by what had been my party up to that point.

Don't tell PP that, he'll have a stroke

Overall, I think Obama did quite well although I have to disagree with the discussion on the board about the Libya discussion. Not only did the moderator fact check Romney - and get it wrong - I don't think Obama did himself any favors by encouraging her to repeat, "louder," the erroneous fact check and I also didn't like that he refused to answer Romney on the subject and then urged the moderator to move on. I think the moderator threw a kink in the debate at that point and that made Romney look foolish when it shouldn't have. That wasn't fair because a lot of people will be left with the impression that Romney just blew it. He didn't and the moderator was walking her comments back within about 20 minutes after the debate was over.

That being said, I think that could just muddy the water for Obama because by claiming that he was saying it was a terrorist attack the morning after, he has now taken a position that will be even harder to explain in terms of why they were pushing the video story for weeks. For that matter, to claim he was calling this an act of terror in the rose garden you have to suspend any questions. He just lied about it, IMO, and I suspect a lot of other people will come away from it the same way. And in looking back, I realize that is exactly why Romney was getting him to commit to that ludicrous explanation.

I also didn't like that Obama skimmed over the part about heading to Vegas in reciting a timeline - he went from being in the Rose Garden alleging labeling this as an act of terror, to weeping with the families when the caskets came home a few days later.

In contrast to some, I thought Romney gave a pretty good answer to what tax loop holes he is considering. I think it is no small thing to say he supports a cap on deductions at a certain income level and that the individual would be able to choose which one worked for them. That's a plan and like it or dislike it, it is pretty specific. I am not sure how that counts as not answering the question. It is not a perfect answer but he has already addressed that he wants to approach this via the legislative branch in a bipartisan manner to select the available loopholes. He also specifically addressed the current taxes on savings and the like which mean that if those go away, even people who are living on a pension or a fixed income will see some relief from the high prices that have been battering them. Income "tax cuts" don't help them. For people on a fixed income whose savings aren't making any money, the rise in gasoline, food, etc. is as bad as taxes - it's just called something else. End of the day, they are getting hammered and other than welfare, Obama isn't offering them any relief.

As for Taomass' comment about Reagan reducing tax rates but actually raising the amount of taxes people paid, well, I think that is actually a misunderstanding of what happened. I agree it was a decrease in tax rates rather than a decrease in tax revenue, and I also agree it resulted in increased tax revenue. That is the point, afterall. But that doesn't mean individuals paid more UNLESS, they actually began making more - as in getting a job or in getting a raise. The point of was to increase jobs, which would lead to more tax payers who would then be adding to the revenue. And it worked. Romney is arguing for the same thing. Obama hasn't had any plan for growth - he is just treating this as a finite bag of money held by the rich and wanting to take from the rich and give to the poor. That doesn't increase jobs/revenue - it destroys it. And it makes more people dependent on public handouts. It is a dead end street and one of the primary reasons this economy hasn't recovered. At this point, we are having to borrow to pay for these handouts so we are approaching a death spiral.

I didn't like the basic premise of the women's pay question but what do you expect from New Yorkers? Setting this particular town hall debate in such a blue state and allegedly filling it with undecideds skews the questions. These people weren't undecided between Romney and Obama - Obama was their default vote and they were actually undecided about whether they could vote for him or just skip the whole thing. But that being said, I think, actually, that meant there was a bit of a disappointment in Obama in the first place and Romney may have just been an afterthought since most wouldn't vote for him, anyway. Their social issues - guns, contraception, women's pay - just more stuff liberals are fixated on and convinced the right is the devil (I equate it to how some conservatives are convinced the left is going to take their guns).

But binders of women? Ech. I sure didn't like the sound of that - I didn't like the choice of language OR the notion that Romney was actively trolling for affirmative action type remedies. In fact, I thought Romney missed quite a few opportunities and could have chosen better words. I DID appreciate that he spoke about flexibility in the work place because I can promise you, no matter what the hardliners say, much of the disparity in men and women's salaries/pay come down to women taking time off from work to raise kids, maternity leave, wanting a cut back schedule to balance family and the job, etc. It is just reality. And we all know plenty of women who could make more money if they wanted to but choose, for quality of life reasons, to work less than full time or in jobs that don't pay as well but are more flexible. Back when I was a sole practitioner, I regularly worked with people in the same boat. Well over 3/4ths of the males had their wives act as business managers, receptionists, couriers, etc. We women did it on our own or hired one employee or - for many - part time workers who would work for minimum wage. I don't know any women attorneys whose husband (and most of us were married) ever considered working for us as part of their job. But I knew plenty of women attorneys who had to constantly juggle child care when they had a sick child or relative. We regularly covered for each other but the men attorneys with children just let theirs wives do it. That's reality for many people and it definitely impacts women's pay - so often, you are comparing apples to oranges, these days. I will be the first to admit that it wasn't so long ago that women did get different pay for the same work. But those days are largely bygone and the difference in pay - there there is any - almost always results from lifestyle differences or choices.