Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Romney did do fairly well. If he was able to fire off more specifics without getting too lost in the details it would have helped more. He did make a few unambiguous denials to Obama's characterization of Romney's positions. I for one appreciate those types of solid answers but explaining how he would avoid doing so fell a little flat.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney acquitted himself well. He'll get the bump, and we'll have to wait a week to see if it dissipates.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney did what he need to do. He argued substance. That's what the independents and undecideds needed to hear. That bump, I expect, is here to stay.
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also think Romney handled this pretty well. I also thought it was a serious snoozefest. If I came into the debate not knowing anything, I would probably lean Romney - but the fact that a lot of his specifics are absent, coupled with what I know about politicians, drives me more to distrust promises. And I felt like Romney made more promises tonight.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if the inability of politicians to balance the budget is at all linked to their inability to gauge time. Nothing new but I would love to see a debate where the timers were visible to the audience and the mics just cut out after their time was up.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney clobbered Obama. The debate wasn't really that close. It was clearly a Romney win.

Granted Romney needed to beat Obama and he has to win another debate to have a good chance. Romney probably also has to win the last debate, but if the second debate were as big a win as tonight's was it probably won't matter that much.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't find an internet link to debates yet -- anyone have one?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a YouTube link: Presidential Debate
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow.

Just watched Romney v Obama on the banking bill, dodd frank, or whatever. I've never seen Obama stomped before. Hell, this guy made a very persuasive argument with facts at his fingertips, while Obama seemed to be throwing around pre-written memorized spews.

Still, the big bird thing was chilling. [Frown]

[ October 04, 2012, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, no teleprompter tonight.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an independent, I was not very impressed by what Governor Romney had to say.

Romney is for public support of energy alternatives, except he doesn't agree with the president's allocations of funds (and how much would he allocate for one of his stated pillars of job creation? Unspecified; he'd just do better.).

Romney doesn't agree with an unelected board making decisions on a public health insurance plan--is he aware that a similar mechanism exists for private plans? Politicians are always happy with anecdotes, so: twice now my husband has had to wrangle with our insurance company (which we have through his work, and no, we can't just walk over to someone else and have it be cost-effective) over his medications. Once, they wanted him to do a 30-day trial of a cheaper medication before using the more expensive one--except he did try it and had a life-threatening allergic reaction to it. Once, they wanted him to first try a medication with potential liver damage complications, that was shown to be less effective and less direct. And you know what? They were right to require some wrangling, as long as they require it in smart places (anecdote #2 shows that they don't always require it in smart places, unfortunately). There has to be a mechanism to control costs. The important part is that there is an appeal process, first internal, then to an independent entity if the first appeal avails ye not.

Romney made a number of promises about medicare and social security. His suggestion of handling medicare at the state level seemed to present the danger of becoming yet another underfunded mandate, but he promised to fund it, so I don't know. Funding something without having control over how it's run sounds dubious to me, in a 'is this really going to work?' sort of way. I also would have liked to hear him address Obama's point about how a voucher system would work out, because in theory I prefer the idea of a voucher system (giving people choice sounds good to me), but I would like to know more about it in practicality. Could he set things up so the government 'plan' wouldn't collapse due to being full of only the fiscally undesirable?

Finally, Romney's tax plan: some specifics would have been nice. I heard on the radio today that his suggestion for boosting revenue was to curb itemized deductions to a maximum amount of $17,000 (the standard deduction for a married couple being around $12,000). I would have liked to hear him talk about that, instead of embarking on handwaving generalities. I imagine this plan could be problematic for people running small businesses with a large amount of business expenses to deduct (particularly people in the start-up phase), and helping small businesses seems to be a point of his--so I would have liked to hear how this would not disproportionately disadvantage them. It's an interesting idea, mind you, I just would have liked to hear more about it in a debate that focused disporportionately on tax policy.

I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people.

The talking heads afterwards bemused me. Apparently the debate had too many "specifics," which might confuse viewers at home. Fagh. Not that you're listening, talking heads, but specifics are /good/. If I as a lay person do not understand everything, fine--that doesn't mean avoid giving me any information in the first place.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The one place that I did find Romney more convincing was the one Pete mentioned. Here was a question of specifics, and Obama responded as if Romney had said something entirely different than what he actually had.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Finally, Romney's tax plan: some specifics would have been nice. I heard on the radio today that his suggestion for boosting revenue was to curb itemized deductions to a maximum amount of $17,000 (the standard deduction for a married couple being around $12,000). I would have liked to hear him talk about that, instead of embarking on handwaving generalities.

Yes, I agree with this. More detail would be better.

On the other hand I still know far more about Romney's tax plan than Obama's.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people."

I can see that, but I think that setting aside the moderator;s rules ended up making this the most informative and to-the-point debate that I've ever seen. If they'd kept the rules, we'd have had half as much information.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Romney's focus on lowering the tax rate could have been disingenuous, because he kept hammering on eliminating or reducing exemptions, credits, and deductions to "keep the revenue". Well, if you eliminate the child tax credit, that hits the middle class a lot harder than rich people. If you haven't lowered the middle class tax rate by as much, it's an effective tax increase.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"I was also not impressed by how often he railroaded/ignored the moderator, and thought this did not speak well of his ability to work with other people."

I can see that, but I think that setting aside the moderator;s rules ended up making this the most informative and to-the-point debate that I've ever seen. If they'd kept the rules, we'd have had half as much information.

I partially disagree. Several times the moderator interjected to make sure they actually answered the question, instead of doing what politicians have done in previous debates (giving prepared speeches which have nothing to do with the question whatsoever).

Several of their continuations were instructive. However, there were several more which seemed particularly pointless. Sometimes it seemed that Romney just didn't want Obama to get the last word in. That doesn't win points with me; substantive answers do.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sometimes it seemed that Romney just didn't want Obama to get the last word in."

It did seem like that once; I agree.

I like Obama's ownership of the phrase "Obamacare."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think Romney's focus on lowering the tax rate could have been disingenuous, because he kept hammering on eliminating or reducing exemptions, credits, and deductions to "keep the revenue". Well, if you eliminate the child tax credit, that hits the middle class a lot harder than rich people. If you haven't lowered the middle class tax rate by as much, it's an effective tax increase.

Surely you aren't seriously proposing that Romney would knock off the Child Tax Credit.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, this is the problem with his approach. He's only SORT OF specific. He says he's going to lower the rate, but eliminate breaks. Which breaks? how much is he going to lower the rate? for whom? We can't do the math, and I'm sure it's easier for him that way, but if I take him at his word, and just fill in the specifics for myself, I'm going to have to consider scenarios where his lower rate doesn't amount to an effective cut.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Assuming, of course, that he does ANY of what he says, which is a big assumption. I don't think that's the norm for our elected officials, including President.)
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just watched Romney v Obama on the banking bill, dodd frank, or whatever. I've never seen Obama stomped before. Hell, this guy made a very persuasive argument with facts at his fingertips, while Obama seemed to be throwing around pre-written memorized spews.

What's sad is that Obama could have called Romney on his misrepresentations there (pointing out, for example, that the large bank "bailout" fund is paid for entirely by the banks that it covers, and the point of the fund to to cover the costs of unwinding them when they eventually do fail.

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Yes, I agree with this. More detail would be better.

On the other hand I still know far more about Romney's tax plan than Obama's.

Aye. "I put it on a website; go look" may be more efficient in the long run, if there is actually sufficient information there (I haven't looked yet), but more specifics in the debate itself would have been nice.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
What's sad is that Obama could have called Romney on his misrepresentations there (pointing out, for example, that the large bank "bailout" fund is paid for entirely by the banks that it covers, and the point of the fund to to cover the costs of unwinding them when they eventually do fail.

Obama did touch on this, but insufficiently to actually make the point. His last reply on the topic entirely missed the mark.

quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just looked up the polls and they confirmed the obvious. Romney substantially outperformed Obama in the eyes of most viewers:

CBS - Of those surveyed, 46 percent gave the win to Romney, 22 percent to the president, and 32 percent called the contest a draw.

Link

quote:

CNN said 67 percent of 430 registered voters surveyed gave the win to the former Massachusetts governor, while 25 percent said the Democratic incumbent did the better job in the debate held at the University of Denver.

The poll also found 35 percent said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney, while 18 percent said it made them more likely to cast their vote for Obama. Forty-seven percent said they were unswayed by either candidate, the CNN/ORC International Poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of the survey participants thought Romney spent more time attacking Obama, while 30 percent thought the president was the more aggressive debater.

When it came to who seemed to be the stronger leader, Romney held a 58-37 edge over Obama.

Sixty-one percent thought Obama did worse than expected, and 82 percent thought Romney did better than expected.

The poll, conducted by telephone, had a 4.5 percentage-point margin of error.

UPI

Romney looked confident, Obama mostly looked down.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.

Except, of course that he kept handwaving around how he'd accomplish that, given that he kept actively avoiding addressing the issue when Obama called him on the fact that the math doesn't work by not addressing where he'd find the additional revenue from removing deductions to compensate for the loss from rates and increases to military spending. (Not to mention the huge opening he left by insisting that dumping money into the military was the key to protecting domestic freedom)

What's worse about Romney's plan is that it's actively antithetical to productive investment, because, by removing deductions, he makes it less profitable for businesses to invest in growth and more profitable for them to instead engage in financial speculation because the of the loss of tax advantage for productive investments. He was outright disingenuous in claiming that income taxes discourage hiring since salaries are directly deductible as expenses.

Obama should have hit him hard on the fact that, if a business is paying taxes in the top bracket, that directly means that it's sitting on nearly $400k of net profits that it has not reinvested into hiring or expansion, so the notion that maybe, if it just had an even bigger profit margin, it might suddenly decide that it would be more profitable to hire more workers. The degree of market failure that it takes to leave that much cash idle is precisely the kind of thing that high marginal rates help to address, putting additional pressure on the company to use it or lose it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.

Ok, Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Though obviously saying they have to provide better coverage is not the same as saying they can set their own healthcare policy.

[ October 04, 2012, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No, not at all. Under Obamacare, states can run their own Healthcare exchanges, they don't get to set their own healthcare policy. The policies are straight from Obamacare, a state can't opt out.
No, they can get a waiver to set their own policy. Vermont has already done so; once the wiver kicks in gets all of the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid funding it would otherwise be entitled to as a block grant to run the single payer system that it implemented. Every state is explicitly able to apply for the same waivers, so long as they can show how they reasonably expect to provide better coverage than the ACA baseline.
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:

For all that Romney insisted that states should set their own healthcare policy, Obama missed a good opportunity to point out that the ACA gives states full funding to opt out and implement their own plans, and that Vermont has already done so (Including replacing Medicare and Medicaid). If states actually want to implement their own programs they're welcome to do so.

I wasn't aware of this. How interesting. So what Romney is proposing.. is what is already in place?
No- a key difference is that Romney is issuing it as an unfunded suggestion rather than a funded mandate. Under the ACA, the states have to do something- either accept the baseline or come up with something better, but they get the funding they need to do it. Romney's suggestion that we return to the status quo meant no impetus and no funding, just like it was before the ACA. (Just like his nonsense about saying he'd cover preexisting condtions, by returning to the previous status quo where they were only covered if you have no extended breaks in coverage, and even then insurance companies could use adverse pricing to squeeze you out of the market instead of having to set prices consistently for everyone.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Romney's suggestion that we return to the status quo meant no impetus and no funding, just like it was before the ACA.

It didn't sound to me like Romney was suggesting a return to the status quo here. Rather, he seemed to be advocating a care act with a different approach. Perhaps I drew a faulty conclusion from his verbiage in the debate. One thing I know for certain: there were insufficient specifics presented for me to know whether he was advocating unfunded mandates or not for health care in general, and unfunded mandates are no one's friend.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
If the states complaining were trying to get the waivers and failing, then that would be a reasonable distinction and a good complaint to make. But the fact is that they're not even trying- that directly exposes the complains as cover for just being allowed to continue to not do anything rather than being frustrated because of political shenanigans.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This was a good line from Romney:
quote:
Jim, I had the great experience -- it didn't seem like it at the time -- of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. And that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done.


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
This is not the same. The states have to convince someone to give them a waiver (and in order to do so, they will have to adopt policies in line with those in charge), rather than opting to take the funds and go make something good. If the point is federal versus local control, the decision is still being made first at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is different.
If the states complaining were trying to get the waivers and failing, then that would be a reasonable distinction and a good complaint to make. But the fact is that they're not even trying- that directly exposes the complains as cover for just being allowed to continue to not do anything rather than being frustrated because of political shenanigans.
This is fair.


JWatts: Agreed, I also thought that was a good line, and a good thing to be able to say.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.

Except, of course that he kept handwaving around how he'd accomplish that, given that he kept actively avoiding addressing the issue when Obama called him on the fact that the math doesn't work by not addressing where he'd find the additional revenue from removing deductions to compensate for the loss from rates and increases to military spending. (Not to mention the huge opening he left by insisting that dumping money into the military was the key to protecting domestic freedom)
I thought it sounded clear that he was going to slash deductions on the upper class, which is basically a tax hike, and also cut social security payouts to the uber wealthy, an idea which he attributed to a Clinton cabinet member.

Where I think Obama nailed Romney was saying nice bipartisan record, but how you going to preserve that coming in here to dismantle Obamacare?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought it sounded clear that he was going to slash deductions on the upper class, which is basically a tax hike, and also cut social security payouts to the uber wealthy, an idea which he attributed to a Clinton cabinet member.
And Obama kept responding that all of those added up don't make up the gap. (Nevermind that SS is a completely separate budget and thus has nothing to do with income taxes in the first place)

That was Obama's point- that once you close all of the upper income deductions, you're still billions of dollars short, the only way end enough deductions to balance Romney's tax and defense proposals is to cut heavily into middle class deductions, well in excess of the benefit they might get from any rate drop.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You mean nothing outrageous like spending 5 trillion dollars in his first 4 years and focusing on health care when he should have addressed the economy? Check!"

Psst, don't look now, but Health Care is a major part of the economy. Mitt would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with... something that has all the things he admits are good about it. He'd just replace the "bad" parts, which are secret.

Obummer did shockingly poorly in terms of the live performance. Anyone caring for my play-by-play and live analysis can check my twitter feed @abukedem. In Football terms, Obama had a 4 INT game in which he failed to connect with open receivers in the endzone 2-3 times.

Further in football analogies (tis the season) I score the game as Romney by 2-3 TD's. However, in this game the score can change after the whistle, and I expect most of Mitt's lead to evaporate once the fact checks are in. Easy to win when your winning arguments are riddled with lies, regardless of stage chops.

I have 3 theories:

1) He's dealing with something that's keeping him up and distracting him. Something big.

2) He's playing a long con.

3) This is is A game and IIWII.

I put it at 1-2 equal probability, and 3 the least.

The best evidence for the long con theory is that he never once said 47%, never once went for any of the 4-5 scores he had available. Mitt went for his early and often. Obummer took Romney's best shot and bleeding stopped at 67% (down from 74 before the debate, but it's been there for some hours now.)

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm glad that Romney's emphatically saying no tax cut at the top, and focus on tax cuts in the middle.
Well, see, this is the problem I had with Romney's speech. He's getting a lot of press about coming out "substantive," but as far as I can tell, he's either actively lying about the details of his actual economic plan as presented or handwaving the problems. Obama's criticisms of the presented plan remain valid; Romney's math continues to not add up, and it is frankly false that his plan somehow concentrates tax cuts and the like on the middle class. He simply cannot do what he is promising to do with the plan he has proposed, and Obama was right to point that out. The problem, of course, is that once Romney flatly denied that point, Obama should have followed up with actual policy discussion (beyond, again, a couple thrusts that Romney again shook his head and denied) based on quotes from Romney's materials. By attempting to deny Romney's denials without harder evidence, Obama just looked argumentative.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"One thing I know for certain: there were insufficient specifics presented for me to know whether he was advocating unfunded mandates or not for health care in general, and unfunded mandates are no one's friend."

That's why I said lots of details but not much specifics. We don't know much more today than yesterday, but we are reminded that they strongly disagree with each other.

I agree that Obama wasted an opportunity. Romney argued for lots of things he can't deliver, like a balanced budget, revenue neutrality, replacing programs in place with other programs that have lots of the same features, and most of all if he stays true to his base, a bi-partisan willingness to find common ground. Obama could have nailed him on almost everything, but instead understated the obvious (to wonks, anyway) that Romney won't be able to deliver...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1