Just wondering if anyone else was undecided when the debates began, and if anyone watched and actually listened to what was said, instead of "well my guy was right, and your guy was wrong"
I thought Mr. Romney conducted himself well, as did Mr. Obama. I thought the moderator was not in good control. I think he also showed his bias when he tried to 'coach' Mr. Obama.
To my own jaundiced eye, it appeared Mr. Lehrer allowed Mr. Obama more free rein on the clock than he allowed Mr. Romney. He seemed inclined to give Mr. Obama the last word, even when he had the first one. Mr. Romney called him on that, politely I think.
I was going to vote for Mr. Romney to begin with, so it did not change my vote. However, it changed my opinion of Mr. Romney in that I now a have more confidence in him. I wish his campaign was as forceful as his presence last night.
As one of the pundits pointed out, Mr. Romney's appearance was a strong as Mr. Obama's campaign, and Mr. Obama's appearance was as weak as Mr. Romney's. I think that's a pretty good assessment.
I did see one missed opportunity that I wish Mr. Romney had jumped on. When Mr. Obama said that is why budgets mattered, Mr. Romney should (in my humble opinion) asked him why, then the Democrat-controlled Senate has not seen fit to pass one, including during the time he sat there.
Sorry for the double-post.
Another missed opportunity, methinks, was the chance to challenge Mr. Obama on the 'handed a trillion dollar deficit' comment. It is way past time to put that canard to rest, though I can understand that it would have probably taken longer than the allotted time to accomplish, and probably thrown the discussion off track.
There was no budget passed by the House, under Ms. Pelosi, or under the Senate, under Mr. Reid, for Fiscal Year 2009, which began in October of 2008. To be sure, the congressional leadership opted not to pass one, and not to submit the majority of spending measures to Mr. Bush for approval.
Thus, other than a couple of spending bills, which included the defense spending, the bulk of spending for fiscal year 2009 was continuing at fy 2008 levels via continuing resolutions. Total spending for 2008 was $2.9 trillion. Tax revenues for 2009 were declining due to the economic slowdown, increasing the deficit, but there were not off by a trillion or even half a trillion dollars.
The bank bailout, to the tune of $700 billion, was passed by the Congress and signed by Mr. Bush late in 2008, but Mr. Bush spent only half that. Thus increasing the deficit by $350 billion.
Mr. Obama cut payroll taxes with the Stimulus Bill, while increasing spending (approximately). I do not know how much of the stimulus was paid out immediately (i.e., before October of 2009), but the whole idea of a stimulus is to get the money out there and moving, so it is reasonable to assume that the bulk of it was allocated within the following months.
In March of 2009, Mr. Obama signed the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY2009, thus taking control of the financial state of the nation for the remainder of the year. That bill included spending that Mr. Bush had threatened to veto if it was sent to him, so it is entirely disingenuous to fault him for excessive spending he never authorized and refused to authorize.
But, being disingenuous is the rule of the day for this administration when it comes to accepting responsibility.
President Bush requested $3.1 trillion in spending for FY2009, with estimated tax receipts of $2.7 trillion for a $400 billion deficit. Actual appropriations were $3.5 trillion, which does not include the $700 billion bailout. Tax receipts equaled about $2.1 trillion, or 600 billion less than estimated, but that includes the loss of payroll tax income authorized by Mr. Obama. Payroll tax receipts anticipated by the Bush budget request were about $950 billion, though would have fallen short of that due to job losses. However the payroll tax cut exacerbated that decline, though I do not have the exact figures for how much, if those figures are even available.
The debate was exciting enough for me to fall asleep after the first 30 minutes. I think as to the part when I awake, if it was watched with no sound, Obama looked as if he knew he was getting whupped.
I felt another great opportunity was when Obama said "I don't believe that all solutions come from the federal government" and then right after that said the federal government needed to fund "100,000 teachers" and went on about federal plans for state needs.
Romney would be a great president. He has the experience and leadership that Obama seriously lacks. Last night was the first time Romney was able to define himself.
I guess you and I watched two separate debates. I didn't see Mr. Lehrer coaching Obama, but I did see Obama trying to answer the question he wished Lehrer asked instead of the one he actually asked. And I saw Lehrer try to steer Obama back to the actual question that was asked rather than allowing him to avoid it. But if that appeared to be coaching to your admittedly "jaundiced eye" nothing I say is likely to convince you otherwise.
And as for who had the last word, I thought Romney kept interrupting and stepping on Obama's comments. It certainly seemed to me that Romney had more than his fair share of minutes and final words. But then again, you have been tilting at windmills everyday for the past four years straight. I'm not even sure that you are capable of seeing anything but giants anymore.
As for the debate itself, to me it seemed that Romney was much more polished and confident with his responses while Obama appeared tired. Of course, Romney has plenty of time to practice the zingers his aides were reportedly writing for him whereas Obama has been busy running the country.
Overall I would say that I have a more favorable impression of Romney after the debate but at this point neither candidate has impressed me.
Obama has been busy running around congress.
Bill Maher: "I can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter"
Of course, Romney has plenty of time to practice the zingers his aides were reportedly writing for him whereas Obama has been busy running the country.
-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 8:57 AM
You were making a funny.... right?
dug, you must have been watching another debate. just because one runs a business doesn't mean they know how to run america. It is suppose to be protection and freedom for all. not just for the small business owners. Romney wants some more of that money. He is greedy and he figures if he can convince the small business oweners to vote for him, he will somehow look out for them. Now that is a bunch of crock.
It is so easy to see what he is doing. But, "the people" won't be tricked by romneyboy. This boy would lead us into another war quickfast. he's trying to be a cowboy president like bush was. It ain't happening! Romney has no tack or any kind of foreign negotiating skills. You need that. Obama has it and now has 4 years experience at it for you skeptics. Now THAT is a no brainer on who could do the better job for the united states. Just like romney is probably a better businessman that the President but you need more skills than that to run this country. As i have said before, jobs are not the only issue in this election.
"But if that appeared to be coaching to your admittedly "jaundiced eye" nothing I say is likely to convince you otherwise."
At least I admit my jaundice.
"But then again, you have been tilting at windmills everyday for the past four years straight."
Really? In what way? Methinks I've more been challenging windbags than windmills...
"I'm not even sure that you are capable of seeing anything but giants anymore."
"We are all but dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants." - Bernard of Chartres -
KC, Thanks for the laugh!
Just like romney is probably a better businessman that the President but you need more skills than that to run this country.
-- Posted by kcknown on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:08 AM
Probably.... get real! Can you remember Solyndra and the other failed companies Obama picked. Romney was working with his money and Obama was working with our money... also with Romney, he wasn't influenced by campaign donations with his picks.
This running the country skills that you claim Obama has and Romney doesn't... where do you get that? By being a comunity organizer?
Obama has more foreign negogiating skills? Really? Have you been watching the news lately and seen what is happening in the Middle East? They're still burning the American flag over there, no matter how much Obama tries to play "nice" with them. Those countries hated us before Obama and guess what? They still hate us and always will.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:04 AM
You're just talking a twosie right?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:08 AM
You spend all day on an anti Obama message board bemoaning your station under the Obama presidency. You're not challenging windbags, you're winding up your own ego preaching to the choir.
Isaac Newton referenced Bernard of Chartres when he wrote that, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." But it seems you think everything has turned to sheisse because you have been kneeling on the shoulders of midgets.
"You're just talking a twosie right?"
Huh? You're going to have to help me a little... don't think I know what a "twosie" ia.
And as for who had the last word, I thought Romney kept interrupting and stepping on Obama's comments. -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 8:57 AM
Obama loves to hear himself speak. You ask him a question and he rambles and rambles incoherently and boring. Romney knew if he let Obama go he would dominate the time - just like his press conferences where he takes two questions and talks for 30 minutes and then leaves.
Obama attempted to ramble and control the debate and Lehrer would have let him. Romney wouldn't allow and and despite Romney's attempt at fairness Obama still, according to CNN, had 10% more talk time than Romney.
just because one runs a business doesn't mean they know how to run america. -- Posted by kcknown on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:08 AM
If I were in charge and could pick between two people - a leader and successful business person or a community organizer I know who I'd pick to LEAD the country.
How are those high utility bills you're paying??? Much higher??? Remember, Obama said "If my energy plan is implemented utility bills will increase". You're getting what you wanted, higher bills.
Romney won hands down no question about that. Obama got educated last night he found out there is more to that job besides going around and cheer leading all the time it requires being able to govern more time spent on working and less time on vacations, golf outings, and talk shows.
Let's just hope the voters wake up to that fact.
"You spend all day on an anti Obama message board bemoaning your station under the Obama presidency."
I'm not aware this is an anti-Obama message board. I'm sure it will come as news to the Southeast Missourian, as well.
Nor do I 'bemoan my station' under Mr. Obama. I've been mostly fair with him. I have been, for the most part, critical of Ms. Pelosi's actions during her tenure as Speaker of the House, and Mr. Reid's actions since 2007.
I've reported factual data on the debt, the deficit, and the budget process. I've also posted news articles relating to occurances here and abroad. How does this equate to 'bemoaning my station under an Obama presidency'?
Wheels I'm praying they do.
"You're not challenging windbags, you're winding up your own ego preaching to the choir."
I devote a considerable amount of time debating issues with Commonsensematters, Theorist, and others. I've not heard them sing, but I do not believe them to be members of the choir.
Methinks I would have a hard time debating if everyone on the board agreed with me. Nor I would find as much to talk about.
"But it seems you think everything has turned to sheisse because you have been kneeling on the shoulders of midgets."
I've not suggested that everything has turned to sheisse. However, if there has been an increase in sheisse in recent times, I would attribute it to the actions of congressional midgets that, rather than ride astride the shoulders of the giants that preceded them, legislated from the lowered expectations that emanate from their lower stature. Being able to see no further than the buttocks of the giants that surround them, they think that is the extent of the world.
Romney won hands down no question about that.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:19 AM
Romney was certainly the best orator last night. But being loquacious does not a President make.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:31 AM
There goes your jaundiced eye again. You would have to be either clueless or in denial to argue that the majority of opinions expressed on the Speakout forum are anything other than an anti-Obama. That is not to say that there are no other opinions proffered but they are far outnumbered and it would be the epitome of lunacy to argue with anyone insincere enough to claim otherwise.
if there has been an increase in sheisse in recent times, I would attribute it to the actions of congressional midgets that, rather than ride astride the shoulders of the giants that preceded them, legislated from the lowered expectations that emanate from their lower stature.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:40 AM
That, we can agree on.
"That is not to say that there are no other opinions proffered but they are far outnumbered and it would be the epitome of lunacy to argue with anyone insincere enough to claim otherwise."
And, yet, here you are...
The board is open to any and all opinion. If, in fact, the majority of posters are right-leaning (and I'm not sure they are) does not make it an 'anti-Obama board'.
I've not attempted to count the pro-Obama posters from the Pro-someone else or even the pro-nobody posters, but I doubt it is a heavy majority one way or the other.
There are also debates and discussions on a number of issues not related to Mr. Obama at all. If it were, as you say, an anti-Obama board, then that would be unlikely to happen.
There may be more right-leaning threads, but I suspect that is because the right-leaning people tend to post more articles, not because there are more of them.
There are frequent posters here, less-frequent posters here, infrequent posters here, and 'drive-by' posters (those that post once or twice in a blue moon). There are probably also a few sock puppets, though I do not pretend to know who is a sock puppet and who is not.
You may have taken the time to count and weigh pro-Obama vs. anti-Obama posts from the posters here and determined the board to be anti-Obama, but I have not. I would be curious to see your statistical data on that. The fact that I always seem to find a left-leaning post I feel the need to dispute leads me to believe the split is more even than you think. Most of my posts, though they may often be in several parts, are in response to posts by others, and usually posts to which I disagree.
For what it's worth, I have also challenged right-leaning and non-political posts that I believe to be erroneous, as I did recently on the charity thread.
Romney: "But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am."
There go the 2%, under the bus, they, the "job-creators" just lost their tax cut.
here go the 2%, under the bus, they, the "job-creators" just lost their tax cut.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 4:19 PM
What aree you smoking. He didn't say he was going to raise their taxes. He just said he was not going to reduce their share. To me that means if they are going to extend the Obama tax cuts they are going to extend all of them, or none.
Here you go Caddy, CSm, Theorist, Howdy and Dexterite. You can register with Jet Blue and when obama looses you are in a drawing for a free ticket out of the country anywhere Jet Blue flies. Yes it is roundtrip.
"To me that means if they are going to extend the (Bush) tax cuts they are going to extend all of them, or none."
Wrong again. Governor Romney has all along said he was going to reduce all taxes by another 20% in order for the "job-creators" to create jobs.
You're really trying to make an anti Romney case Common and it isn't working. Stock Market went up today, sounds like they are optomistic.
I think Common may be one of the 25% they surveyed today that thinks Obama won the debate last night.
"Stock Market went up today,..."
It's been going up for the last 4 years.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM
Well actually Common when you want to get right down to it, the Stock Market has been going up for the past 100 years and more.
Common, The point he was making was that the job creaters are not the ultra wealthy but the more the small businesses across the country.
You seem fixed on punishing the rich at the exspense of the middle class.
Romney explained the upper 2%, as the libs seem to coin, will lose the deductions and loopholes.
Obama was saying he was for the middle class by being able to spend their money more wisely than they could. Go back and read the part starting with his gandma.
Wrong again. Governor Romney has all along said he was going to reduce all taxes by another 20% in order for the "job-creators" to create jobs.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 6:03 PM
That is a lie!
Regret, If Obama is defeated will you consider delaying retirement?
We regret to inform you,
There is an article in businessweek that backs up what commonsensematters posted.
It is not a lie!
""Romney has all along said he was going to reduce all taxes by another 20% "
All taxes would be everyone or has the meaning of "all" changed ?"
And he said he would 'pay for it' by eliminating deductions and credits enjoyed by eliminatind deductions and credits enjoyed by upper income earners. That was his claim before and that
is claim now. That would mean everyone would pay a lower rate, but upper income earners would pay the same or more taxes because they would lose the deductions that currently lower them. It's simple math, as Mr. Obama likes to say.
The Tax Policy Center reviewed certain concepts of it and said it couldn't be done. The Heritage Foundation reviewed and and said it could.
Common needs to go to work for MSNBC and report one side only rule.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:58 PM
There is no way I would quit. There will be a release of investment money we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter was defeated. I wouldn't dare to waste these 4 years of **** and miss out on another boom.
Wheels, Regret how in the world can you have only 114,000 jobs created in September and the unemployment rate drops from 8.1% down to 7.8% with just 114,000 jobs created, those numbers don't sound right September was a low job creation month compared to previous months. Just asking
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 7:49 AM
On Sept. 11, 2012 a pre-planned terrorist attack by al Qaeda on our consulate in Benghazi resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and 3 other brave Americans.
The Obama administration - for 2 weeks - said this was a last minute protest and they had NO idea or no forewarning on this attack and it was related to a movie that had been out for over a year.
Now we know a) the Libyan government told the Obama admin a week before the attack that an attack was imminent, b) the Ambassador asked for more security and was denied, c) The Obama administration knew within 24 hours it was al Qaeda, and d) for 2 weeks LIED about the facts, the deaths, the people involved for one reason - to save Obama. Period.
Now we see that in AUGUST 96,000 jobs were added to the work force and unemployment went UP from 8.1% to 8.2%. Today we see that in SEPTEMBER only 114,000 jobs were added to the work force and unemployment FELL from 8.2% to 7.8%. It will be revised after the election with an "oops! - we hit the wrong button on our unemployment calculator".
The latest september data says that 53,493,000 Americans are "out of the work force" - 4 million MORE than when he took office - and a new record - more than last month! That number is HIGHER than August - yet the unemployment rate went down.
And Benghazi - after they new for over 2 weeks - was a surprise attack by a bunch of random protestors with no warning over a movie.
You do it with an eraser and a pencil.
Just last night I heard they were expecting the number to go up as there was some 3 or 4 hundred thousand applying for unemployment for the first time.
When I saw that unemployment was down this morning my first thought was the fix is under way.
lower unemployment, more people working. unemployment rate drops under 8%. All this happening under Obama's lead. now what romney fans. you got what you wanted. told you this election is not just about the economy. pay Attention!
"Where did the heritage report say that it could be done?"
"Different Assumptions, Different Results
"The authors assume that Governor Romney's plan would raise taxes on middle-income and low-income taxpayers by $86 billion, which would result from closing certain tax preferences on these taxpayers. However, if they had instead eliminated certain tax preferences that tilt toward high incomes that they originally ruled off the table, such as the exclusions of interest on life insurance savings and municipal bond interest, a minimum of $45 billion of the $86 billion would fall on high-income taxpayers, according to their follow-up analysis.
"If they fixed their step-up error, a large portion of the remaining $41 billion would also shift from middle-income and low-income taxpayers to high-income taxpayers, moving the Romney plan even closer to distributional neutrality.
"The Office of Management and Budget estimates that step-up will reduce tax revenue by $24 billion in 2013. Assuming that assets inherited after death follow the same distribution as long-term capital gains as reported by the IRS in 2009, 78 percent of that $24 billion, or $19 billion, would count as offsets for incomes over $200,000.
"In total, fixing the step-up error and putting the exclusions of interest on life insurance savings and municipal bond interest back on the table would shift at least $64 billion of the $86 billion tax increase (about 75 percent) that the report assumes would fall on middle-income and low-income taxpayers to high-income taxpayers.
"In addition, this amount is decidedly conservative. Strong evidence suggests that the authors significantly underestimated the $45 billion that would be transferred up from middle-income and low-income taxpayers by eliminating the exclusions of interest on life insurance savings and municipal bond interest. Furthermore, the $19 billion tax reduction for step-up in 2013 would likely be even higher in 2015, the year the report uses for its analysis.
"Even assuming the $45 billion estimate is accurate and assuming step-up would not grow in value, there are several ways to close that remaining gap of $22 billion. For example, choosing tax preferences other than the ones the authors chose and combining them with other policy changes that they did not consider in their analysis could close the gap. These could include phasing out personal exemptions for high-income taxpayers or capping their itemized deductions. Some of these options might not be sound policy, but they would easily raise enough revenue from taxpayers earning more than $200,000 to close the $22 billion gap. In fact, President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget includes a cap on itemized deductions for incomes over $250,000 that would raise considerably more than $22 billion.
"Making these changes in the authors' assumptions would undo their headline-grabbing conclusion that Governor Romney's tax reform plan would cut taxes on the rich and raise taxes on middle-income and low-income taxpayers. Instead, with these changes in place, their analysis would show that the Romney plan makes growth-promoting policy changes in a revenue-neutral manner and does not raise taxes on middle-income and low-income taxpayers."
If anyone thinks that Romney has a snowballs chance in Hell to beat BHO they should go to Walmart on the 4th day of the month. Watch as they pour in talking on their free cell phones and fill carts with sugary junk then pay for it all with EBT cards and WIC vouchers. Do you honestly think any of these people would jeopardize their free ride? Why would they want a job as Romney is trying to get them?
The Republic will survive Obama but what is less likely is that it will survive the multitude of Idiots that vote for him.
Posting a comment requires free registration: