Presidential Debate 1
Here we are at last. It’s time for the first Presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Jim Lehrer moderates tonight’s debate, hosted by the University of Denver at 7:00 PM MDT. The focus this time is on domestic issues.
The domestic focus puts Romney in a bit of a bind, since he has reason to strike while the iron is hot, with respect to the issues in the Middle East. But he risks looking foolish if he comes across as misunderstanding the topic of the day.
And this brings us to a preview of tonight’s issues for each of the two candidates.
Mitt Romney
Romney has spent a great deal of time over the past few weeks practicing for tonight. In particular, he has been practicing the delivery of “zingers”, in the hopes of getting a good press bounce this news cycle. He certainly can use such a bounce; thus far, he has squandered every opportunity he had up to this point.
Romney will almost certainly focus on the high unemployment and growing national debt. Those are his strongest arguments, but they also have some weak points. The number of jobs has returned to pre-recession levels, but the working-age population has increased, so the jobless rate remains stubbornly high. And Romney’s economic plan shows a sharply growing national debt as well.
The former Governor also has some major pitfalls he has to avoid.
He needs to give the impression that he is the candidate for all Americans. Given the domestic focus, Lehrer would be remiss if he didn’t ask about the 47 percent statement that came to light a little over a week ago. And Romney would be remiss if he hasn’t been practicing an answer to that very question. But it had better be an amazing answer, because the 47 percent statement added fuel to the already roaring fire of his “I’m for the rich” meme, which has been turning off significant parts of his base.
He needs to be very careful about how he discusses Obamacare. The individual mandate is still unpopular, but his shift from “repeal it all” to “keep everything except the mandate” is going to be a landmine studded field for him to navigate.
He needs to have an answer to his lack of detail on his economic plan. Promising to cut tax loopholes, and giving a dollar figure on it — but refusing to specify which loopholes they are — says he has something to hide. He could have gotten away with it if he hadn’t been so specific with regards to the expected results. But once he did that, he has to show his work in order to be credible. People who aren’t already predisposed to vote for him see through this sort of thing. His $17,000 deduction cap suggestion is interesting, but smacks a bit of being off the cuff.
And he needs to have an answer for his refusal to release his tax returns. If Lehrer doesn’t hit him on that, Obama surely will.
But most of all, he needs to come across as human. His stiff delivery, looking uncomfortable even when he feigns comfort, keeps his television audience at arm’s-length. It’s possible to overcome that stiffness, but Romney has so many disadvantages at this point that he needs all the help he can get.
Barack Obama
Obama’s task is less difficult in many respects. He’s ahead in all of the polls, especially in several key states. He has a reputation for being more personable than Romney. And he makes fewer verbal gaffes than his opponent.
On the other hand, he is expected to do better. And sitting Presidents tend to have a hard time in reëlection debates. Part of this is the equalization that occurs when the two candidates share the same stage; it makes the challenger look “Presidential”. Part of this is that Presidents necessarily live in a bubble, surrounded by people who don’t challenge them much. When one gets used to everyone around saying “yes”, it’s irritating to be around someone who is challenging at every turn.
And this is the source of Obama’s Achilles’ heel tonight. When he’s at ease, he can be really compelling. When he’s annoyed, he comes across as condescending and petulant. His job tonight is to stay at ease, and keep the arrogance at bay.
Obama has the improving economy on his side — though it’s not a powerful argument, given that it has been a weak recovery. He has the benefits that are already appearing from Obamacare, benefits which are sufficiently popular that Romney has already said he wants to keep them.
All in all, this should be an interesting evening.
What do you think is going to happen? What questions would you like to see asked? How do you think the candidates will respond? How will they do in general, and particularly against expectations?
The debate starts at 9:00 PM EDT (6:00 PM PDT). It will be carried by the major networks, and will also be available online streamed by YouTube. We look forward to you joining us tonight for the live event, and trying out our new commenting service as part of it.
Related articles
- As moderator of DU’s presidential debate, Lehrer knows risks (denverpost.com)
- Jim Lehrer Announces First Presidential Debate Topics (huffingtonpost.com)
- YouTube to live stream 2012 presidential debates for first time (sfluxe.com)
- Stakes for Denver debate are mile high for Mitt Romney (freep.com)
- An Advanced Marketing Strategy: Why Mitt Romney Wants You to Think Barack Obama Is a Better Debater (prweb.com)
- Obama, Romney neck-and-neck ahead of debates, say polls (thehindu.com)
- Obama v Romney: tense US presidential debate looms (guardian.co.uk)
- U.S. Presidential poll: Denver debate seen as potential “game-changer” (thehindu.com)

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on October 3, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Reelection Watch. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
-
-
-
#511 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
#512 written by DaWolf 8 months ago
Romney: “The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.” — doesn’t this strongly imply that he takes a lot of plants overseas, if he needs a new accountant to take advantage of the deduction?
-
#513 written by turrboenvy 8 months ago
-
-
True. Romney offered no actual plans, and he spent a lot of time denying the plans he has previously offered. His insistence that lowering tax rates will be revenue neutral is, on its face, a lie. His attacks were, at best, misleading. His attempt to saddle President Obama with “trickle-down” policies was pathetic. The things Romney admitted that he liked were all things Obama has done.
To my mind, Romney cemented his image as a slippery Guy Smiley, though he did manage to avoid looking like Thurston Howell III because his personal taxes and the “47%” never came up.
-
#516 written by parksie555 8 months ago
-
#518 written by parksie555 8 months ago
Had to dig into settings to get most recent comments, don’t like “nested” style of comments, has bombed out my browser twice (in two browsing sessions).
Romney buried Obama. It was clear who had been to the gym before this fight. No zingers, just a steady spotlight on Obama’s failures and refutation of Obama’s lies. He still may not be able to change the trajectory of the race but who looked more presidential last night? Answer truthfully, for you liberals are supposedly fact based. -
#519 written by shortchain 8 months ago
So we’re electing leaders on whether they look more presidential? Here’s a clue: in the reality-based community, standing next to a president doesn’t make you look like a president.
Here’s my after-“debate” (always in quotes, as these affairs do not resemble an actual debate) prediction: Romney will get a bump in the polls, which will thrill the press, as nothing depresses them like a dull and predictable campaign, and then, as things settle, it will become obvious that Obama is still preferred by a 3–5 percent national margin and somewhat more in the “swing states”.
Not even much sound and fury — but still signifying nothing.
-
Truthfully? I don’t think the debates have a damn thing to do with “looking Presidential”. I want someone who will be a President, not look like one, or I’ll vote for Michael Douglas or Kevin Kline or Martin Sheen.
I acknowledge that the media and probably a majority of the public feel that Romney “won” the debate. I saw, and scored, it differently (you can see my real-time reaction in the comments below). I thought it was close to a tie, but I gave a slight advantage to Obama. The public and pundits saw it differently. I’m used to that.
-
#521 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#522 written by mclever 8 months ago
I think that’s a good assessment, turboenvy. If we remember Obama’s 2008 debates, he rarely had a “dynamic” performance but rather more of a workman’s approach to laying out his views. I remember Hillary “winning” several of their debates, but it never moved the needle of support, because in the end people liked what Obama said better. It just takes a few days for that to sink in. Flash polls and instant reactions tell you who won on style. A week from now, we’ll know who really won on points.
-
#523 written by mclever 8 months ago
It keeps forgetting who I am. I click the “Post as mclever” and it tells me I need to authenticate in order to post, usually after I’ve written a particularly long comment. I’ll log out and log back in, and then the comments will be in bullet-list instead of the Disqus module loading. I’ll have to refresh several times in the hopes that Disqus comes back. Then I’ll have to hunt for the comment I indended to reply to, and sometimes it disappeared (regardless of how I’ve sorted things). I click over to Community and back to Discussion and sometimes that brings the comments back, but not always. It’s very frustrating.
-
#524 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
” Romney is a candidate of a 20 percent cut in tax rates, a new plan to cover people with preexisting conditions, and higher defense spending, and he will accomplish it all by eliminating federal funding for PBS.” http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/return-of-massachusetts-mitt.html
I would add, he now claims he will replace Obamacare with— the plan on which it is modeled…
-
#525 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#526 written by mclever 8 months ago
If I’m reading this right, CNN’s instant poll was conducted *entirely* among white voters in the south. Does that seem like a representative sample to any of you? The only comment during their telecast to indictate that their sample might be a little strange was when King mentioned that it tilted a little more Republican than their typical samples. He neglected to mention that it tilted a little white and a little south, too. Ridiculous! http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf
-
#527 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
-
#528 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
Yeah, it looks like they’re 100% white, southern, Republican, self-styled moderate to conservative, urban, and suburban. All had at least some college. More than half earn over $50 K. This is not a representative sample of America. Even so, didn’t budget the favorable/unfavorable for either candidate.
-
From The Silver Monkey over at the Daily Kos (yes, biased source, but I think an accurate analysis):
Apparently, as noted below in the comments, the N/A on the crosstabs is listed to denote that the sampling range places the margin of error below statistical significance. So, there were presumably under 50’s, minorities, and non-southerners sampled. It’s still odd, to me at least, that only southern, 50+ whites were sampled enough to get a significant MOE on the results, when I’m sure there was probably a sizeable nationwide debate audience. Maybe that has something to do with the willingness of the original respondents to be bothered with a second phonecall survey. In any event, takeaway for me is that the loss seems pretty evident, but it’s certainly fairly mild as it did not even really move this particular block much in terms of their voting decisions. I wouldn’t go so far as to cry scandal or shennanigans, but it strikes me as a big oversight. CBS’s poll seems much more on point, with about a third of the undecideds breaking mostly towards Romney, which actually lines up pretty accurately with Nate’s earlier prediction today of a modest increase in the polls toward the Challenger.
-
#532 written by Mainer 8 months ago
-
OK, so Romney won on style, and Obama on substance. Based on history, style trumps substance in these debates. And, also based on history, this should be enough to tighten the race, but not change the outcome of the coming election.
And, again based on history, the next three debates will have progressively less impact going forward.
Of course, we don’t have enough data points to have a huge degree of confidence in any of the above. -
#534 written by parksie555 8 months ago
“Obama won on substance“
Really?
He got beaten like a redheaded stepchild. He looked like a petulant child. Overmatched.
How this translates to winning on substance is beyond me. I think you are reaching a bit here.
It may not alter the trajectory of the race but to claim last night was success for Obama in any way is patently ridiculous. -
-
#536 written by parksie555 8 months ago
Romney won on reason, data, and detail.
Read any reasonably unbiased account of the debate and it will show Romney was quicker with facts, had more details, and generally had a better grasp of the issues.
Your denial of these facts is as bad as the Freeper crowd denying the reality of the current polling on the race. -
#537 written by mclever 8 months ago
That was my take as well, Michael. Though I, personally, preferred Obama’s style, too. I’m not a fan of agitated or combative. Romney rattled off a bunch of “facts,” but never any clear details about what he would do, and a bunch of nonsensical denials of his own plans, such as saying that he’ll lower the tax rate but not cut taxes and that non-change will automagically create jobs. Obama’s “facts” were at least internally coherent.
-
#538 written by mclever 8 months ago
It’s not so much that I’m screaming “scandal!” but that I’m annoyed at the unprofessional presentation of this information by CNN. A few minutes after the debate ended, they have a gigantic graphic with 67% Romney and 25% Obama in blazing lights. They proceed to talk about these results as if they were gospel for the rest of the telecast, until 5 minutes before they signed off when John King mentioned that the sample might be “slightly, slightly” skewed towards Republican responders. Really, ya think??
At least the CBS results seemed more plausible and honest. Yes, I admit that Obama likely lost in the instant reaction, because instant reactions tend to go for flash, but the 67% number was just so obviously overstated. Come on. 30% of the country will say Obama won if he mumbled every answer, passed out on stage, and woke up singing in Russian. Another 30% will say the same for Romney, and at least 40% on either side would refuse to name the other candidate as winning, even if he walked on water. Obama was dull and professorial, which some of us like but many don’t, so I’d guess it’s reasonable for 30–35% to think he won, 45–50% for Romney, and a fair number of ties. And, unfortunately for Romney at this stage of the game, ties go to Obama. I expect a 2–3 point shift in the polls, enough to make it close, but Obama should still have the edge a week from now. -
Here’s a listing of a few of last night’s Romneylies:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
The hits keep a-comin’. -
#542 written by parksie555 8 months ago
-
#544 written by Mainer 8 months ago
Mac, yes I too would think scandal to be a little over the top. Sloppy, unprofessional, biased, and misrepresented could easily be used but I doubt it is going to change much one way or the other. I also wouldn’t use dull as a descriptor. I expect our leaders to talk to us as adults if that comes across as dull then so be it. Mr. Romney didn’t talk to me that way last night.
CNN are the losers in this as I see it. Who after this will take any future efforts in this regard seriously. I have to figure that one Mr. Silver will weigh in on this a some point and if he does it will not be pretty.
Unlike others I don’t think Mitt did himself any favors last night. He seems to have the habit of going for the short term gain at the expense of long term viability. His whole tax plan will now get torn apart and even some of the dimmer pundits are going to come to the conclusion that it is bullshit. Some one will evaluate how many things he said that are just not true and compare that to what the president put forth and that will not look good.And most notably some one is going to compare what he said last night to what he has been saying and have to ask which way is it. (actually it looks like the president is already doing that).
Will Mitt get away with this crap the next time? Maybe but if I were him I wouldn’t bank on it even in the Caymen Islands. Oh and if John Sununu is an example of how is surrogates are going to handle things then he mayend up wishing he had lost.
-
#545 written by parksie555 8 months ago
Here’s a real analysis, not partisan garbage from a hack lefty site like the Kos
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/10/04/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps-2
Seems like there were some whoppers on both sides. -
#547 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
-
#548 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
One can be guilty of fanciful thinking…IMO Obama got his head handed to him in his hat last night. The sooner he realizes that and reacts to it, the better. Romney is playing for keeps, and so better Obama. This not a matter of polls or polling, it’s about taking for granted what you have to earn every time out.
-
parksie, first of all, US News is certainly as far to the right as Daily Kos is to the left. Any pretense that it presents “a real analysis” is laughable at best. I note that you didn’t actually address any of DK’s points, but just offered a distraction instead.
I’ll just grab one of US News’ distortions. The article addresses Obama’s statement that Romney is calling for a $5 trillion tax cut, them claims, “But Obama’s math doesn’t take into account Romney’s entire plan.” The article acknowledges, “Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.” It then goes on to claim, “Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions.”
The problem with that claim is that Romney has given no indication of what these Secret “credits, deductions, and exemptions are.” Obama pressed Romney for details, and Romney simply refused to acknowledge the problem. He simply claimed, in a flat-out lie, that he is giving no tax cuts to anyone. Without the detail of how he would balance his tax rate cuts, his claim that it will not result in a $5 trillion hole in the budget is pure bullshit.
Obama said, the only way to balance the cuts is by raising taxes on someone else, or by doing away with exemptions on the middle class (thus raising their taxes) or gutting nearly all other federal programs. Again, Romney simply denied this, but offered no solutions.
US News’ other criticisms of the President are similar whitewashes of Romney rhetoric and lies. Sorry, your “real analysis” is total crap.
And you have offered nothing other than ad hominem attack on Daily Kos in a response to their fact checking. That’s revealing.
-
#551 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#552 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
-
Romney said the pre-existing condition inclusion would stay, and that kids could stay on their parents’ insurance, and every other Good Thing that Obamacare does. But Romney refused to say how he would pay for all this. And he said he would repeal Obamacare. His contortions amount to trying to tell every listener what that listener wanted to hear, with no actual plan on how to accomplish any of it.
-
#554 written by parksie555 8 months ago
-
#555 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
-
#556 written by parksie555 8 months ago
-
#557 written by mclever 8 months ago
I think the accusations that Obama’s $5 Trillion tax cut claim is a “lie” come from folks who didn’t understand what he was saying. He wasn’t saying that the 20% reduction in tax rates plus the elimination of estate taxes and other cuts was the whole of Romney’s plan. He says that the cost side of Romney’s plan calls for $5T in tax cuts on top of the Bush tax cuts plus increased military spending for a total of $8T, and the question is how to pay for it. He’s saying, on the debit side of the ledger you’ve got these revenue reductions plus this increased spending, and the idea that you can balance that on the credit side of the ledger by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions is impossible. You need more credits from somewhere to make up for the costs. Romney keeps waving his hands and saying it’ll work, but the numbers don’t add up. Those calling Obama a liar are complaining that he didn’t include stuff on the credit side of the ledger when he was adding up the debit side.
-
Very interesting. So, in a focus group of 40% Republican-leaning independents, and 30% Democratic-leaning independents, after the debate about 40% of them said they would vote for Romney, and about 30% said they would vote for Obama. This is a shock?
I think the most significant number is in CNN’s poll of exclusively white, southern, Republican, college-educated people, about half of whom make over $50K / year — what was it, 27% of them thought Obama won the debate? Geez, 27% of white, southern, college-educated Republicans thought Obama did better than Romney? That does not make Romney look good, it really doesn’t.
Seems to me nothing is going to change. The latest Gallup poll (taken before the debate) showed Obama at a 54% approval rating (!) his highest since about November of ’09.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Unless Romney does something huge here late in the 4th quarter (and it doesn’t look like the first debate was it), Obama is heading toward a big win. -
#559 written by mclever 8 months ago
Wait a minute, Parksie. CNN and PBS both rated the healthcare premium claim as true. The increase in healthcare costs is at the lowest rate in 50 years according to Kaiser. And the existence of tax incentives for moving jobs/companies overseas is true, too. Perhaps Romney does need a new accountant!
-
#560 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
-
#561 written by Valjiir 8 months ago
-
-
#563 written by parksie555 8 months ago
On those tax incentives: (From the WaPo)
Here’s how the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation described it:
“Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the United States or overseas. Deductions generally are allowed for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, which includes the relocation of business units.”
Moreover, it is pretty small potatoes given the attention Democrats pay to it. The JCT estimated that ending the deduction for moving operations overseas would raise just $168 million over a decade.
In the federal government with an annual budget deficit of more than $1 trillion, that’s what you call a rounding error. -
“Gnosis” is from the same root as “knowledge.” It implies you have some divine source that makes you correct, and everyone else wrong. Simply claiming that Romney’s lies are fact-based, while offering no evidence other than your proclamation, is tantamount to claiming you have had a divine revelation.
-
-
#566 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#567 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#568 written by Max 8 months ago
Guys,
Looks like the better sports analogy for the first debate would have been football. So before everybody gets all up OR down, consider:
Romney’s down by 10 at halftime. Last night, he took the opening kickoff of the second half and made a brilliant run out to the President’s 40 yard line.We shall now see, in the coming few days, whether, as a result, he will be able to score a field goal, a touchdown, or will give up the ball on downs, a fumble or an interception.
-
#569 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#570 written by junk-shot 8 months ago
How can anyone say that Obama won on substance? Obama missed countering opportunities that my 4-year old picked up on. When Romney said he would de-fund PBS, my kid asked me if that meant he won’t get to watch Dinosaur Train. Yea, little man, thats exactly what that means. How hard would it have been to point out that cutting educational programming, but providing tax breaks to the oil companies demonstrates your values?
I don’t think Obama lost the election with this performance, but he had better pick up his game.
-
#571 written by MoldyMe 8 months ago
Okay, I cannot stand it, I have to say something. Yes, I think Willard (for those of us of a certain age, recall the horror movie, “Willard,” but THIS rat has a smirk and only knows how to lie) “won” the debate. Obama was prepared for most things, I have no doubt, but he obviously wasn’t prepared for Willard to disown all he has been saying throughout the campaign and lie about everything. But now Obama and Biden know the slime they are dealing with and I have no doubt that the next debates will be different.
A variation on Reagan’s mock-rueful, “There you go again.” is the perfect rejoinder for all of Willard’s (and Ryan’s) lies. And something along the lines of, “Don’t you think the American people deserve to know the numbers? Don’t you trust them to understand?” might go a long way toward defusing Willard’s magic math.
-
#572 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
-
#574 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
rgbact — yes or no — is it your understanding that Romney intends to lower anyone’s taxes?
Is it your understanding that he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare?
Does he favor further federal restrictions on abortion?
Then, for extra credit — what “loopholes” will he close to make up for $8 trillion in lost revenue from lowering tax rates and eliminating capital gains taxes?
Double extra credit — Romney said he would cut funding for public television, in an attempt to bring down the deficit. What else will he eliminate, and how much difference will it make?
-
#576 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#577 written by Mainer 8 months ago
A good friend had a great comment when I just saw him at the grocery store. I was telling him some of the comments on here and some other sites and commented how Mac had used the term dull, or the term flat or unprepared. He countered with perplexed. Now I know going into a debate one tries to prep for the unexpected but his take from watching the debate left him with the feeling that the president was hearing things from Romney that had the president doubting his own ears (and that is a lot to be doubting). The president has always jotted little notes in such settings but he did a pile of scribbling last night and seemed to almost scowl at what he had written.
I find myself wondering if this was a master plan by the Mitt camp or another whack at the reset button that took a bunch of people by surprise. At the ole coffee shop this AM our resident righties were almost giddy about last night until one of our moderate Republicans started apparently started asking them about some of the specific things Mitt had said where upon they seemed to get quite agitated that Mitt was wandering away from positions that they thought they had pretty much forced him to take on their behalf. It will be interesting to see how such things play out. One could almost hear the MC of the old Whats My Line show. Now we will see how old some of you are.
-
#578 written by mclever 8 months ago
OK, I must totally admit that when Romney made his snark about having five boys so he’s used to someone saying something untrue and just repeating it hoping he’ll believe it, I so wanted Obama to come back with something about Romney teaching his boys by example… I completely realize it wouldn’t have played well with anyone but die-hard Dems but part of me wanted to hear it anyway. And that’s the sort of thing that makes Obama’s “prevent defense” style of debating tough for partisans.
-
#579 written by Max 8 months ago
WTF is this fixation from our righties with “biased sources”?? Do all y’all think we only get our info from a single source? Is it transference? WTF?
Do you think it’s all made up? Didn’t y’all hear the same thing? Do you want to deny that he ever said those things? Tell ya what, sit there and flatly deny he said what he said and then contradicted himself! Say it out loud. (Type it) I, and a few others, will ENJOY throwing it back in yer faces!
C’mon! Just
DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
#580 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#581 written by rgbact 8 months ago
“anyone“is too restrictive, Any kind of tax reform will have certain winners and losers.But I’m sure Dems will identify the “anyone” which is why the GOP never agrees to tax increases.
Yes,he wants to repeal D-F and ACA. Is that a surprise to you?
Not sure about federal restrictions,but Roe v Wade is a federal guarantee.…which he’s against. States like New York would still have the ability to have as many abortions as possible though.
As for PBS..Obama also noted oil tax breaks and tax breaks “for sending jobs overseas” which are also big deficit nothing burgers. Incidentally,Obama has been prez for 4 years and those tax breaks are still there..
-
-
#583 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
@rgabct,
Romney insisted last night he was giving no one a tax cut. He wasn’t going to increase anyone’s taxes, either. You heard that, right? Taxes aren’t going to change for anyone, according to last night’s Romney. Do you approve of that?
Romney said regulation is good, and all the things Obamacare does are good. What parts, exactly, does he want to repeal? What does he want in their place?
Under what circumstances would Romney allow abortion to be legal?
I note that you ignored the tax question about which “loopholes” Romney would close to pay for his $8 trillion hole in the budget. You’re right, Romney refuses to answer it himself.
You didn’t answer about PBS and what other programs Romney would cut, nor how much difference it would make. Care to try again?
And yes, Obama was unable to overcome Republican filibusters on tax changes. You’re blaming Obama for Republican obstructionism? Really?
-
#585 written by Mainer 8 months ago
-
#586 written by rgbact 8 months ago
No, I’d say in tax reform, some people wiith huge deductions will pay more. Romney may be overpromising, like when Obama said no tax increases <$250K.
He wants to repeal all of it. Does Obama.never offer some agreement on GOP ideas and is Romney not allowed or he’s a Lie–lie–liar!!!
I’m pretty sure Romney won’t be focused on abortion. I just said, all that’ll be gone is a federal guarantee. New York can still abort to its heart’s content.We’ve had plenty of Republican presidents and not much has changed on abortion.
I imagine Obama didn’t mention he’d be slashing Medicare and raising taxes when he was campaigning for healthcare in 2008 either. Those kind of details often are left till later. I imagine the mortgage deduction will be curtailed though, since that was part of S-B, and Romney has talked about favoring their approach
No, Obama had massive majorities for 2 years. If a GOP prez had total control for 2 years and still was harping about PBS getting subsidies.….I’d laugh in his face.
-
I’d say in tax reform, some people wiith huge deductions will pay more.“
Which deductions, specifically? And do you really believe that no one over $350K will pay less?He wants to repeal all of it.
So, insurance companies can reject you if you have a pre-existing condition, and kids can’t stay on their parents’ insurance, right? Though Romney said h wouldn’t change that What els is he lying about? And which regulations in Dodd-Frank will Romney keep? I notice you declined to say what Romney will replace these things with. Try again.I imagine Obama didn’t mention he’d be slashing Medicare and raising taxes when he was campaigning for healthcare in 2008 either
Well, since he didn’t do these things, it scarcely matters. But the question here isn’t tu quoque. It is, What is Romney actually saying he’s going to do? Do you actually know?I ask again — under what circumstances will Romney allow abortions to remain legal? Do you know his position on this? Yes or no.
imagine the mortgage deduction will be curtailed though, since that was
part of S-B, and Romney has talked about favoring their approach
Of course, Ryan voted against Simpson-Bowles. Do you support or oppose Ryan? Is Romney admitting and running on repeal of the mortgage deduction? How will that counteract reducing the top marginal rate from 35% to 25%?You again avoided answering which federal programs Romney will end, and how much it will save. Try again.
-
#588 written by rgbact 8 months ago
I think you may be obsessing over a lack of detail that just isn’t common among most campaigns. When Obama promised to half the deficit, did you obsess over all the specific budget items? Probably not. There is some faith that goes into electing a president. Romney has a record of fiscal prudence and balancing budgets. so I’ll trust him given the fiscally insane alternative. Romney’s broad outlines are right on target.
-
#589 written by Max 8 months ago
-
rgbact, You’ve made it clear that you can’t defend Romney’s position. You don’t even know what Romney’s position is. You won’t even admit to what he has claimed his position to be. That’s my point. His campaign is based on total fantasy, and you’re falling for it.
He has made it plain he’s going to slash taxes for the incredibly wealthy, cut services to everyone else, raise your taxes, remove whatever constraints there are on predatory businesses, throw away your health care and your retirement — and he has hoodwinked you into thinking there is something fiscally prudent, even noble, in doing so. Plus, he hasn’t the first clue about foreign policy or how to handle the military. And his Veep is an idiot. And he dresses funny.
You’ve got a clown conman for a presidential candidate. You don’t have the first clue what he stands for.
-
#591 written by junk-shot 8 months ago
Yes, he did mention that spending demonstrates values, but that was later in the debate. Not exactly timely. Instead, what he countered with was an argument that he had worked with Dems and Repubs to cut 1 trillion dollars out of the discretionary domestic budget.
It was truly unbelievable to watch. Romney was trying to be more like Obama. That made sense to me, seeing as Obama is (or was) ahead in the race. The unbelievable thing was that Obama was trying to be more like Romney. Why?
I agree that Obama doesn’t need to counter every attack. But, he needs to counter some of them, then make a few attacks of his own. Its called debating. Rope a dope and playing prevent defense is not going to work. Unanswered attacks will lead to defeat. Just ask John Kerry.
I hope you are right and I am wrong. If you are right, and Obama played it correctly, the polls should continue to keep trending up for Obama. We will see in a few days.
-
#592 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
When you do check back, see if you can tell us anything of what Romney is proposing. You haven’t so far. I don’t expect you to be able to, since Romney spent last night lying about the president’s record, and lying about the things Romney himself as so far proposed. We are left without any idea what it is Romney is proposing for the nation, and you have proven that pretty well.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (336 posts)
Michael is a jack of many trades, and master of a few. His varied background includes government and private businesses, both large and small. His experience in the financial services and computer industries has led him to computer security.





Likewise. Thanks for letting me play in y’alls’ sandbox!