Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 11:43:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2012 22:08:51 GMT -5
I think Obama got the best of Romney in the debate, although i do believe Romney closed the debate better than Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 3, 2012 22:10:39 GMT -5
Exactly what "lies" did Romney tell?
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Oct 3, 2012 22:12:18 GMT -5
I think Obama got the best of Romney in the debate, although i do believe Romney closed the debate better than Obama. I haven't watched yet (recorded it) but I heard differently.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Oct 3, 2012 22:22:29 GMT -5
While I do support Obama over Romney, I think it was pretty clear who won that debate. When all is said and done, I don't think it'll have that much of an effect on the election, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Romney polling better in the coming days.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Oct 3, 2012 22:36:59 GMT -5
I'm a big Obama supporter, but he absolutely got his clock cleaned tonight. Cleaned with lies, pure and simple. And just wait, there are 2 more debates that will be President Obama Vs. Robmoney. Those that think Robmoney won tonight won't know what hits them in the other 2. Yikes...fail with the "Robmoney" name. What lies?
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Oct 3, 2012 22:44:27 GMT -5
They both 'lied', that's what politicians generally do.
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 3, 2012 22:52:06 GMT -5
I don't think, as far as the debate influencing the results of the election is concerned, it matters if either candidate told anything at all resembling the truth. What matters is the Romney campaign has a bunch of pretty good soundbites to build the next phase of their campaign on.
Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed that Obama didn't go after Romney at all during the debate. I feel like he had a lot of chances to score an early knockout and basically bury Romney. I still think Obama's got this election in the bag, but he could have ended it tonight instead of leaving the door open.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 3, 2012 22:58:38 GMT -5
Exactly what "lies" did Romney tell? His tax plan. How he said his "plan" won't lower the tax burden on the rich and won't raise the burden on the middle and lower class, when it clearly will. He's been pushing for millionaire tax cuts, the same ones that George Bush gave. How are those gonna get paid for? Someone's gotta pay for it. The only thing that's gonna "trickle down" is the higher tax rate for the middle and lower classes. He kept saying all these "plans" he has, but he didn't talk in detail about a single one of them. If he thinks his plans are so good, and they'll help the country out so much, why didn't he talk about them? His plan to create 12 million jobs. Sounds good. The words "12 million jobs" probably look good on paper. But until he tells us how he's gonna do it, it's just that. Words on a paper. He FINALLY mentioned the troops, and the defense budget. Which is WAY overdrawn. He lied about the Medicare plan his buddy Paul Ryan sponsored. About how it WILL turn Medicare into a voucher-program. Flat out lied when he said that Paul Ryan said nothing about a voucher program. Look. We must have clearly watched a different debate. Because if you couldn't see just how badly Romney flip-flopped on every single issue that was debated about tonight, then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Oct 3, 2012 23:00:40 GMT -5
Romney totally flip flopped, but he was confident and on the attack about it. Obama wasn't bad but he needs to step up his game like robinsonben36 said or he could leave himself open to a lucky punch.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 3, 2012 23:05:13 GMT -5
Source: PoliticusUSA.com
1). Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy
Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board.
Ryan said, “And so what we’re saying is, we’re going to lower tax rates for everybody across the board by 20%, and we can pay for that without losing revenue by closing loopholes for people at the top end of the income scale. Everybody gets lower tax rates as a result. And you can keep these preferences for middle class taxpayers and have 20% lower tax rates.”
2). Romney claimed his tax plan doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class
Mitt Romney used some funny math to claim that his plan doesn’t raise taxes on middle class. However, the Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s plan, “The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.”
3). Romney claimed that Obama would increase taxes on the top 3% of “small businesses.” Romney used some dubious statistics to claim that Obama would raise taxes on small businesses. What Romney didn’t tell the voters is that he and the Republican Party have a unique definition of small business. Washington Monthly explored the GOP definition of small business, “Many of those 750,000 small businesses aren’t small at all. Some, like Bechtel Corporation, are positively enormous. The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of “small-business” income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the “small businesses” that would be impacted are actually giant companies — which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.”
4). Romney says oil subsidies go to small companies
Romney tried to sell the subsidies for Big Oil as going to small natural gas and coal companies. The truth is that $2.8 billion in subsidies go to the five biggest oil companies. Big Oil is also allowed to write off all of their drilling costs.
5). Romney said getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will kill jobs
Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.”
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Oct 3, 2012 23:20:38 GMT -5
Source: PoliticusUSA.com 1). Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board. Ryan said, “And so what we’re saying is, we’re going to lower tax rates for everybody across the board by 20%, and we can pay for that without losing revenue by closing loopholes for people at the top end of the income scale. Everybody gets lower tax rates as a result. And you can keep these preferences for middle class taxpayers and have 20% lower tax rates.”
2). Romney claimed his tax plan doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class Mitt Romney used some funny math to claim that his plan doesn’t raise taxes on middle class. However, the Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s plan, “The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.”
3). Romney claimed that Obama would increase taxes on the top 3% of “small businesses.” Romney used some dubious statistics to claim that Obama would raise taxes on small businesses. What Romney didn’t tell the voters is that he and the Republican Party have a unique definition of small business. Washington Monthly explored the GOP definition of small business, “Many of those 750,000 small businesses aren’t small at all. Some, like Bechtel Corporation, are positively enormous. The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of “small-business” income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the “small businesses” that would be impacted are actually giant companies — which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.”
4). Romney says oil subsidies go to small companies Romney tried to sell the subsidies for Big Oil as going to small natural gas and coal companies. The truth is that $2.8 billion in subsidies go to the five biggest oil companies. Big Oil is also allowed to write off all of their drilling costs.
5). Romney said getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will kill jobs Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.” You are aware that Obamas entire term has been a lie right? He promised to make more jobs and better the economy....he put us into even MORE debt and jobs are at an all time low.
|
|
Fleet Foxes
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 9, 2012 10:27:47 GMT -5
Posts: 1,117
|
Post by Fleet Foxes on Oct 3, 2012 23:59:33 GMT -5
Obama is not a great debater. Unfortunately these debates are more about show than it is about the facts, and Romney looked better up there tonight. Right now it seems like a handicap for Obama to be without his teleprompter.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 4, 2012 0:34:08 GMT -5
Tonight went exactly as planned. Romney came out swinging. Romney played his ace, he fired on all cylinders tonight. He'll have nothing left for 2 more debates between he and President Obama, and the President will eat him alive when those 2 dates come up. And don't get me started on how Joe Biden is gonna destroy Paul "Lyin'" Ryan.
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 4, 2012 0:38:23 GMT -5
I actually think Paul Ryan is going to "beat" Biden even if his points generally lack substance, just like we saw this evening. Perception is everything in these debates, and while Ryan comes across as pretty smooth (especially if you don't listen to a word he says), Biden can be a little rough around the edges and sometimes talks himself into tough situations.
I do expect Obama to be much more well-prepared for the next debate, too, but he really has to go on the offensive if he wants to earn any popularity points back with the casual voter.
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 4, 2012 0:38:57 GMT -5
Source: PoliticusUSA.com 1). Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board. Ryan said, “And so what we’re saying is, we’re going to lower tax rates for everybody across the board by 20%, and we can pay for that without losing revenue by closing loopholes for people at the top end of the income scale. Everybody gets lower tax rates as a result. And you can keep these preferences for middle class taxpayers and have 20% lower tax rates.”
2). Romney claimed his tax plan doesn’t raise taxes on the middle class Mitt Romney used some funny math to claim that his plan doesn’t raise taxes on middle class. However, the Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s plan, “The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney’s tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.”
3). Romney claimed that Obama would increase taxes on the top 3% of “small businesses.” Romney used some dubious statistics to claim that Obama would raise taxes on small businesses. What Romney didn’t tell the voters is that he and the Republican Party have a unique definition of small business. Washington Monthly explored the GOP definition of small business, “Many of those 750,000 small businesses aren’t small at all. Some, like Bechtel Corporation, are positively enormous. The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of “small-business” income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the “small businesses” that would be impacted are actually giant companies — which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.”
4). Romney says oil subsidies go to small companies Romney tried to sell the subsidies for Big Oil as going to small natural gas and coal companies. The truth is that $2.8 billion in subsidies go to the five biggest oil companies. Big Oil is also allowed to write off all of their drilling costs.
5). Romney said getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will kill jobs Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work.” You are aware that Obamas entire term has been a lie right? He promised to make more jobs and better the economy....he put us into even MORE debt and jobs are at an all time low. Source? I gave one for mine. You just type words and think people will buy it. 4.5 million jobs have been created. That's more jobs than this country had when George Bush left us in Hell. And whether or not you want to believe it, the economy is better than what ol' GW left us. Unemployment is - while still high - around 9%. If the policies of Bush had been continued by President Obama, before the end of his first year, the national unemployment rate would have been at 20% or very damn close. George Bush f*cked this country up royally over 8 years. It's been 3 1/2, a little longer, since President Obama was sworn in. You can't fix 8 years of f*ck ups in 3 1/2. It's not logical. It's plain and simple not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 4, 2012 0:44:30 GMT -5
Exactly what "lies" did Romney tell? His tax plan. How he said his "plan" won't lower the tax burden on the rich and won't raise the burden on the middle and lower class, when it clearly will. He's been pushing for millionaire tax cuts, the same ones that George Bush gave. How are those gonna get paid for? Someone's gotta pay for it. That's not true necessarily. Massive cuts to spending would do significantly more than taxing the rich does. Regardless, I'm not going to break down what Romney said. I watched like 10 minutes of the debate because, quite frankly, I know that both of these guys are completely full of crapand the only interest I have is in their awkward attempts to "box" the other one by playing the blame game. This election truly is the Giant Douche vs. the Turd Sandwich. Look. We must have clearly watched a different debate. Because if you couldn't see just how badly Romney flip-flopped on every single issue that was debated about tonight, then I don't know what to tell you. If you're just catching on now that Romney is a worst flip-flopper than John Kerry, then I don't think you've been paying very close attention. I had to get up and leave the floor when Romney was speaking at the Republican National Convention because I couldn't stand his bullshit. A woman from Texas tried to stop me and asked, "Don't you want to stop Obama?" and I answered, "Not if it means supporting this guy."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 11:43:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2012 0:47:57 GMT -5
His tax plan. How he said his "plan" won't lower the tax burden on the rich and won't raise the burden on the middle and lower class, when it clearly will. He's been pushing for millionaire tax cuts, the same ones that George Bush gave. How are those gonna get paid for? Someone's gotta pay for it. That's not true necessarily. Massive cuts to spending would do significantly more than taxing the rich does. Regardless, I'm not going to break down what Romney said. I watched like 10 minutes of the debate because, quite frankly, I know that both of these guys are completely full of crap and the only interest I have is in their awkward attempts to "box" the other one by playing the blame game. This election truly is the Giant Douche vs. the Turd Sandwich. Look. We must have clearly watched a different debate. Because if you couldn't see just how badly Romney flip-flopped on every single issue that was debated about tonight, then I don't know what to tell you. If you're just catching on now that Romney is a worst flip-flopper than John Kerry, then I don't think you've been paying very close attention. I had to get up and leave the floor when Romney was speaking at the Republican National Convention because I couldn't stand his bullcrap. A woman from Texas tried to stop me and asked, "Don't you want to stop Obama?" and I answered, "Not if it means supporting this guy." Isn't that what every election is though to a Libertarian? I mean honestly, other than maybe the '64 election with Goldwater, whom libertarians love, every election is a neo-con centrist vs. a neo-con centrist. I don't see how this is any different from 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, etc. as far a libertarian's viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 4, 2012 0:58:30 GMT -5
I believe that Romney and Obama are closer to one another than any other previous race. At least in the others, we had (at least the perception) that both candidates weren't complete war-mongerers.
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Oct 4, 2012 1:01:56 GMT -5
You are aware that Obamas entire term has been a lie right? He promised to make more jobs and better the economy....he put us into even MORE debt and jobs are at an all time low. Source? I gave one for mine. You just type words and think people will buy it. 4.5 million jobs have been created. That's more jobs than this country had when George Bush left us in Hell. And whether or not you want to believe it, the economy is better than what ol' GW left us. Unemployment is - while still high - around 9%. If the policies of Bush had been continued by President Obama, before the end of his first year, the national unemployment rate would have been at 20% or very damn close. George Bush f*cked this country up royally over 8 years. It's been 3 1/2, a little longer, since President Obama was sworn in. You can't fix 8 years of f*ck ups in 3 1/2. It's not logical. It's plain and simple not possible. Sources are everywhere so go read them. Unemployment rate is higher now than in 2008. I'm aware its not logical change things in 4 years but to PROMISE that he would make more jobs and fix the economy in 4 years is very dumb on his part. He PROMISED he would fix everything in 4 years and if he didn't he'd be a one term president. None of his 4 year promises came true.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 4, 2012 3:12:13 GMT -5
3). Romney claimed that Obama would increase taxes on the top 3% of “small businesses.” Romney used some dubious statistics to claim that Obama would raise taxes on small businesses. What Romney didn’t tell the voters is that he and the Republican Party have a unique definition of small business. Washington Monthly explored the GOP definition of small business, “Many of those 750,000 small businesses aren’t small at all. Some, like Bechtel Corporation, are positively enormous. The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of “small-business” income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the “small businesses” that would be impacted are actually giant companies — which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.” I could break down each of these, but I wanted to point out this one in particular. Most people don't know this, but most "small businesses" pay income tax at the personal AND business levels. This means that the owners of the business are essentially double-taxed despite being the biggest job creators in the country. And no, I don't mean the mega-"small businesses" as this clearly one-sided article explains. I actually am specifically not talking about those. These small-to-mid sized "small businesses" often do not turn profits for many years when they are starting up, thus putting the owner(s) in a substantial economic hole to dig themselves out of. However, once the business does begin to turn a profit, they are almost always taxed at a higher rate than corporations and individuals. This is a major issue, of course, as the small business owners attempt to dig themselves out of the financial hole they put themselves in to finally create a business that is turning a profit. Do not fall into the trap that this article sets. Yes, there are MASSIVE corporations that are considered "small businesses" by the Republican party, but as the article even explains, that's such a small number of these businesses that it's hardly even worth mentioning. The vast majority of small businesses suffer because of the economic policies put forth by both the Republicans and the Democrats, though the Republicans typically are a little more lenient on allowing them to find loopholes in the tax code to not sink their company by paying taxes. I do not have a dog in this race, but to act like Barack Obama is doing some amazing service to people by increasing taxes on small businesses, even if it is the "top 3%," is ridiculous. Oh, and for No. 5, I love how the article explains that off-shore bankers will benefit from the tax cuts, but they neglect to point out the obvious connection of if the taxes are too high, the rich people will simply choose not to build businesses here, thus ensuring that they don't pay any US taxes whatsoever. DERP.
|
|