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"
Nope. "my guy was right, your guy was wrong". :-)
The only thing I think it showed is how thin-skinned Obama is. He HATED it when Romney challenged him. He thought this was a press conference where you can take 2 questions and give a 30 minute answer and walk away. He had to take it - first time in 4 years and he can't stand it.
I definitely agree with that. He did seem highly irritated when Romney challenged him.
You could see it in his face, Romeny made him mad when he brought up the Green Energy Failures and the fact that many were his financial supporters.
The Romney supporters are saddened to learn that they are not going to get tax cuts after all.
Where did that come from?
Where did that come from?-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 10:12 PM
That is why you've got to get of MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC - or "The View". You've been listening to the spinners.
I don't want a tax cut. I want spending cuts.
It was a Rocky Mountain beatdown for Romney. He used the best tactic one can use on Obama- facts. Obama couldn't use his usual shuck and jive tonight. David Axelrod is going to spin a bearing trying explain Obama's failure. Even Obama's private cable station,MSNBC,are talking about Romney's win. Doesn't get any better than that.
Skipped around following the debate. MSNBC sounded like they were in a panic. CNN realized Romney whopped Obana. Fox News seemed downright cheerful. All in all, it asppears Romney came out on top in the first debate (but of course I could be a wee bit prejudiced.)
Does this mean that you have changed your mind and are not going to vote for Obama now?
Give CBS tonight and they will have this spun and in the win column for Obama by 7:00AM. You can count on the racist crowd saying Romney was picking on him.
I did see a good debate between the two but I have to agree with Romney's ideas of healthcare being on a state level instead of the feds running the show. That WILL keep it from being used as a giveaway for votes.
On the economy Romney was way ahead of the ball. Obama didn't say much more than he did in 2008.
Obama was frustrated and Romney won.
Wheels, you have just committed sacriledge and you are assigned saying 1000 times "Obama the Magnificent" as penance! You Naughty boy (and Obama too)!
Just pulling your leg a little. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
How have you been doing you old f***. We don't see enough of you over here any more? Still have that great avatar I see. I remember it's history and it still looks great to me.
Do your penance and we'll talk! At first I thought you referenced Chris' Matthews leg (or some other body part).
I check in to SO regularly to see what's going on, but you usually have already said what I was thinking and did not want to be repetitious.
I am not going to change my avatar. I designed, crafted the model, photographed it which I used to create the avatar. It's mine and I'm going to keep it.
As I would if I were you. It is very nice... almost as nice as my self portrait avatar. ;-)
OK, Wheels, lets just the two of us agree we are either too lazy to change avatars or else mightly pleased with our selves. By the way, just love it when you tie into any of the the coterie of Liberal non-thinkers. Makes my day.
What's happened to Dadyman? Change naames and avatars?
Perhaps the most significant day of the last 4 years and it took about 10 posts before this thing went off the rails to comment on avatars and how ya doin'.
Did not change my mind, I voted early yesterday morning.
I hear that Caddy went out last night and put a Romney/Ryan sticker on his Yugo.
I too believe Romney won the debate. A perfectly polished politician. Scary...
It matters not that he never explained how he was going to do anything. He attacked and that was exactly what he was instructed to do. Debate victory Romney. No, it has not changed my mind.
"It matters not that he never explained how he was going to do anything. He attacked and that was exactly what he was instructed to do." -- posted by Reasoning
That's exactly what Obama did 4 years ago. He just kept repeating, "hope and change", and the voters elected him. Well, I have lost all HOPE with this current administration and am ready for a CHANGE.
mo, the debate did not change a thing. it was even, Obama pushes on forward. Romney cannot explain how he would change things. All he does is talk, but no explanations on how he would change things or even replace the affordable health can plan he so desperately wants to repeal. If you paid any kid of attention to Obama's response to that. He told Romney that would be hard to get passed in congress....even on his first day if by some chance that hell freezes over and he won. Now that was for real dude. "the people" heard what this boy wants to do and they ain't gonna go for it. Don't worry, we got something for Romney come his judgement day (nov 6). I can't hardly wait.
Romney does not even talk about how he would reach out to people. He did make the rich boys mad by telling them he would not approve their tax cuts and giveaways. But, he was lieing, and that will cost him a lot of good ole boy votes.
It was about even. If it is even and if it stays even, then Advantage Obama because he is already in the lead in all of the major swing states.
Oh, by the way I ain't gettin rid of the Cadillac. It still runs too good to even think about it and it is mine mo.
not approve their tax cuts and giveaways. -- Posted by kcknown on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM
Are you talking about the Obama tax cuts? That's the only "tax cuts" we have now. Obama's tax cuts were for the rich too.
Caddy and Reasoning,
Do I detect some sour grapes here?
I think obama was distracted. After all Caddy it was his anniversary and he knew moochelle would be waiting. I figure the tongue lashing he got from her for being a loser was worse than what Romney gave him.
I grieve for our country, and I feel completely abandoned and marginalized by the federal government, and more and more so by the state government.
There hasn't been any representation for me for a long time. All I get is form letters, and I've spent way, way more energy on petitioning for redress than is even reasonable. No one cares what I think.
The die has been cast; we'll get one or the other, and neither gives me any optimism. At least Obama could only torment us for 4 more years, unless he were impeached and convicted.
Posted by Givemeliberty on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:05 AM
I'll mark you down as a non-sheople.
While Obama was the loser last night, the big loser was the mainstream media as examplified by Jim Lehrer. He tried several times to assist Obama. Romney politely took command and pput Lehrer in his place.
Later after the debate, Chris Matthews just about went over the edge. Never saw anything like it.
The calmest, most reasonable and rational of the evening was Bret Hume of Fox News.
Mr. Matthews was not happy, that's for sure. He wasn't very professional, either.
"Romney politely took command..."
Call it as you want, he was actually comparatively rude. The main thing accomplished was that Governor Romney exceeded low expectations. The other was his throwing Ryan's budget under the bus.
Just came in for lunch and did a surf around the Obamamedia. Seems they finally got together with the White House to get their spin up to speed.
Romney did better in the debate because he practiced. Really? Almost choked on my sammich.
Did a little surfing around and the Liberal Media is really in a snit over Obama's performance. They may be just waking up to the fact that sending a community organizer in to run the Nation's highest office may not have been the brightest thing they ever did.
Obama has been able to skate by for the past 3 1/2+ years with the shielding from the left leaning media, but now he is on a one on one and he is finding out it is not a basketball game he is in.
Wrongney won the debate on style only. I thought he was on Speed or had just drunk a dozen Red Bulls.
-- Posted by donacita on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 1:48 PM
Another Happy Camper, did you ever think about joining the Chris Mathews Fan Club?
Romney won because he did not let Obama get away with the lies he has been used to telling without being challenged.
Obama has a problem if he is held to defending his record. He has no worthwhile achievements to campaign on, so he invents some. Make him tell the truth and we will be rid of him finally.
For those that claim they didn't hear a plan being put forth by Romney, these quotes were taken from the transcript of the speech:
ROMNEY: You bet. Well, President, you're -- Mr. President, you're absolutely right, which is that, with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not -- not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half -- half of all the people who work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one-quarter of all the workers in America. And your plan is to take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.
ROMNEY:I don't want to cost jobs. My priority is jobs. And so what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions, the same idea behind Bowles-Simpson, by the way, get the rates down, lower deductions and exemptions, to create more jobs, because there's nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. That's by far the most effective and efficient way to get this budget balanced.
ROMNEY: I think it's, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they're going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives.
I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one.
Number two, I'll take programs that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level and send them to the state.
Number three, I'll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.
This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget.
The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The president's put it in place as much public debt -- almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.
ROMNEY: Look, the revenue I get is by more people working, getting higher pay, paying more taxes. That's how we get growth and how we balance the budget. But the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you'll never get there. You'll never balance the budget by raising taxes.
Rick, regarding your 2:09 post: my intention was not to provoke anyone. I'm just not as practiced in posting as most of you are, and got a little impatient I guess. Must have pushed the button twice. My apologies.
That is a double dribble and I do it all of the time when I get in a hurry. :-)
Just heard the all time,can't top it,excuse for Obama's poor performance. Al Gore says that Obama arrived in Denver just two hours before the debate so he did not have time to acclimate to the altitude. According to Obama's own admission of some illegal drug use in college he should have been used to the "air up there". But,of course,Denver was lower before global warming.
Rick, regarding your 2:09 post: my intention was not to provoke anyone. I'm just not as practiced in posting as most of you are, and got a little impatient I guess. Must have pushed the button twice. My apologies.
-- Posted by all_i_hear_is_blah_blah on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 3:47 PM
No problem. Double the threads, double the fun.
"Mitt Romney witnessed the death of his brother-in-law's sister from an illegal abortion, and stated the belief that abortion should be safe and legal. This was his stance in 1994 and 2002 when running for office. Suddenly, when working for the Republican nomination in 2007 he announced that he was pro-life and wanted the repeal of Roe V. Wade in favor of state regulations. ???"
This was posted by ssoutheast on the speak-out thread yesterday. This is the kind of thing I was referring to Have wheels must travel. I have no sour grapes. He is a polished politician. He wouldn't have got this far if he wasnt. I do not trust nor like him, and I will not vote for him. If he is elected, I will be respectful and hope for the best.
He is a person that understands how thing work. Obama has zero experience in the real world. The most used words... Obama used government the most. Romney used people. If altitude was such an issue why did Obama do such a good job on his acceptance speech in 08 in Denver? Teleprompter?
The craziest thing I heard last night is Romney was being racist to Obama.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 8:08 PM
Of course Barack Obama has impeccable credentials, the purest of intentions, would never lie (unless it sounded better than the truth) and is not a polished politician.
Reasoning, you are not fooling anyone but yourself, you are a Democrat and you are going to vote for Obama no matter how bad he is.
Rommey was not my first choice but he is head and shoulders better for this country than Obama with his socialistic agenda.
Reasoning, Some folks don't believe in the death penalty, but if it is to be carried out it should be safe and legal. So your point is..?
"But,of course,Denver was lower before global warming."
Rising sea levels would actually lower Denver's altitude. If Denver is higher now, it's Mr. Obama's fault. Recall that, on the day he was nominated, the sea levels ceased to rise and the Earth began to heal. At least, according to him...
It was refreshing to see Mitt finally tell the tea party types to stuff it. And that's exactly what he did. -- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 8:22 AM
He said he would not raise taxes on anyone. He would lower them for the middle class. The exact opposite of Obama who said he would raise taxes on higher incomes and would NOT lower them for middle class. I think you now have two pair of rose colored glasses.
One to blind you to Obama's impeachable actions.
Another to take those tax statements and call that "progressive".
"It was refreshing to see Mitt finally tell the tea party types to stuff it. And that's exactly what he did."
I was not aware that he ever kowtowed to the 'Tea Party types'. They've been pushing Ron Paul all along, and Mr. Romney was not their pick. They arrived at the Convention with their Ron Paul signs, hoping for a coup.
Mr. Romney has to make inroads to winning their support, which may go to the Libertarian, or they may just stay home. I think his performance in the debates showed that there is enough difference between him and Mr. Obama, particularly on the issue of state control (which he mentioned in discussions on health care and education) to sway at least some of them.
His support for a strong military, which may not appeal to Ron Paul supporters (Mr. Paul is anti-war and opposes a strong standing army, as the Constitution dictates), will appeal to many other conservative voters. Mr. Obama's proposal to spend the money we're 'saving' by winding down the war flies in the face of the fact that we're not 'saving' it, we simply aren't borrowing as much. Mr. Romney at least seems to understand that distinction.
"He threw Ryan and the entire GOP message on taxes under the bus."
No, he did not. He said he would lower the rates but eliminate the deductions. That's what he has been saying all along, if you listened to what he was saying, and not to what the Obama campaign was saying that he was saying.
As the Tax Policy Center notes, their analysis did not include the elimination of 'preferences', becuause they did not have the specifics on them. Ergo, their analysis was incomplete.
"Governor Romney would permanently extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts now scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences, but has supplied no information on which preferences would be reduced. Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). The plan would also eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household) and repeal the federal estate tax, while continuing the gift tax with a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.2
"The plan would reduce the six current income tax rates by one-fifth, bringing the top rate down from 35 percent to 28 percent and the bottom rate from 10 percent to 8 percent. The accompanying repeal of the AMT would increase the tax savings from the rate cuts--without that repeal, the AMT would reclaim much of the tax savings.
"The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now.
"At the corporate level, the Romney plan would make two major changes: 1) reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and 2) make the research and experimentation credit permanent, It would also extend for one year the full expensing of capital expenditures and allow a "tax holiday" for the repatriation of corporate profits held overseas. The plan does not specify, however, whether repatriated earnings would face any tax and, if so, at what rate. In the longer run, Gov. Romney would reduce the corporate rate further in conjunction with base broadening and simplification and would move the corporate tax to a territorial system.
"Gov. Romney would also permanently repeal the 0.9 percent tax on wages and the 3.8 percent tax on investment income of high-income individual taxpayers that were imposed by the 2010 health reform legislation and are scheduled to take effect in 2013.
"Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan's targets."
Logically, if higher income earners are paying lower rates, despite the 'progressive' nature of our tax system, then there are a considerable number of deductions, allowances, and 'preferences' that, though elimination, would increase tax revenue through their elimination. Eliminating them (which would increase revenue) while lowering ther rates (which would lower revenue) would theoretically balance out, based on the levels each is modified.
Since deductions, allowances, and 'preferences' tend to favour high income earners, they are the ones most likely to see their taxable income raised through their elimination. Lowering their rate will reduce the likelihood that the tax burden will shift more greatly to them.
As Mr. Romney noted in his famous '47%' remarks, those 47% who pay no federal income taxes will not be affected by either the lowering of rates nor the elimination of deductions and allowance, and thus the changes will not appeal to them.
"Shap, the net effect will be to tax the rich more while the middle class - assumed to be under 200k - will get a tax cut. Period. Romney even said it himself in the debate."
That is correct, since the offset made by the deductions will primarly affect higher-income taxpayers (those with the most deductions and allowances). Those with the fewest deductions will see the reduction due to lower rates weigh more heavily than the increases due to lost deductions and allowances.
Obviously, we're talking overall percentages here. Some high income taxpayers will see lower taxes, some will see higher taxes, some middle income taxpayers will see lower taxes, some higher taxes. The goal is to see the percentages of tax paid by each percentile remain relatively consistent with what it is today.
It's math, as Mr. Obama notes. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's admitted difficulty with 'numeracy' explains his difficulty in grasping it.
"Lowering their rate will reduce the likelihood that the tax burden will shift more greatly to them."
That may be the understatement of the week...
Since Governor Romney gave no specifics on how he would handle deductions, exeptions and loopholes, other than to claim the entire plan would be revenue neutral, it's hard to say where the burden will shift.
As the TPC calculated, it is possible for his plan to give up distribution neutrality, and end up costing the middle class the most.
The Heritage center claims the TPC made assumptions unfavorable to Governor Romney, while they want to make assumptions favorable to Governor Romney. The most questionable of these is that the increase in actual tax receipts (needed to maintain revenue neutrality) is attributable to major increases in jobs, wages and income.
What the HC claimed was...
"However, they did not account for the increased economic growth that the Romney plan would generate by increasing incentives to work, save, invest, and take on risk. In fact, they did not conduct this type of dynamic analysis because they entirely discount the beneficial effects of pro-growth policy changes. They even suggest that revenue-neutral tax reform plans like Governor Romney's plan could negatively affect growth..."
"However, strong evidence indicates that the Romney plan would have a robust beneficial effect on economic growth."
What strong evidence?? That's the HC opinion, so they seem to be basing their conclusions on opinion rather than real numbers. But then again, isn't that their mission.
Assuming that one has an income of $1,000,000 which after deductions, is lowered to a taxable income of $600,000, according to the 2011 tax table, the income tax paid would be $600,000 x .35 - $26,065 (assuming the filer is head-of-household), or $183,395.00 (18.4% of actual income).
If we lower the rate by 20%, to a 28% tax rate, with no other changes, the tax would be $141,935, or 14.2% of total income.
In order to make this particular wage-earners income revenue-neutral, we would have to eliminate $148,000 in deductions, bringing his taxable income from $600,000 to $748,000. Now, I'm no tax accountant, but I don't see that as being undoable.
Now, how this affects an earner making, say, $80,000 I cannot say. However, given the proportional difference in income, I would expect a proportional difference in change. That is to say, if the $80,000 wage-earner has an taxable income of $48,000 (60% of total income, the same as the $1,000,000 earner), then his head-of-household income tax of $6,774 (8.5% of total income) would lower to about $5,440, with no other changes, but and he would actually have to exceed his present income in order to lose enough deductions to pay the same rate.
Thus, while upper income-earners will likely pay the same or more, middle-income earners will likely pay less. In order to make it revenue-neutral, GDP has to grow (more income earners earning higher incomes), which is the goal of the change in the first place.
What we have seen with Mr. Obama's middle-class tax cuts (the payroll tax cuts I've mentioned before), even though GDP has grown significantly since 2008, total federal revenue remains below what it was then. That is because payroll taxes require more payroll employees with higher payrolls, which Mr. Obama's economy has not produced. There is undoubtedly more money in the economy, given the higher GDP numbers, but the increases in income taxes are not offsetting the loss of payroll-tax revenue (about 1/3 of federal revenues prior to the payroll tax cuts).
Keep in mind that the Bush Tax Cuts were in place in 2007 and 2008, when total revenues were higher than they are today. Thus, one cannot blame the Bush Tax Cuts for the failure of today's revenue to match or exceed those levels.
Perhaps Me'Lange can weigh in with her tax expertise, to show where I may be wrong.
"In fact, they did not conduct this type of dynamic analysis because they entirely discount the beneficial effects of pro-growth policy changes."
"What strong evidence?? That's the HC opinion, so they seem to be basing their conclusions on opinion rather than real numbers. But then again, isn't that their mission."
Historical evidence suggests that. Economic growth followed the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush tax cuts.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 10:00 AM
So using the Nancy Pelosi strategy.... we will just have to elect him to see what is in his plan.
Is that logical thinking Common?
"Historical evidence suggests that. Economic growth followed the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush tax cuts."
Historically there has almost always been economic growth in this country. If it happened to take place during or after a tax cut, the tax cut is given inordinate credit. However, this has not been the case in the ciurrent century.
From the "Big Picture" (www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/the-u-s-economys-lost-decade/)
There was zero net job growth from 2000 to 2009.
"For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable."
Just in case you forgot: By nearly any conceivable measure, the George W. Bush administration (2000-08) economic performance was the worst of any President since Hoover."
I suspect it will take some serious calculations in order to define which deductions, allowances, and preferences must be trimmed and which may be left for 'bargaining chips' in order to achieve the desired results. He also has to have a proposal that will be palatable to the Congress if it is to get passed, so it makes little sense to try to set in stone a promise that may have to be broken later.
Such accounting is complex and expensive, and not worth the costs to nail down to a specific figure at this point in the game.
It seems to me Mr. Obama was vague about the nature of his health care plan when he ran for office, too. One of the few specifics was that it did not have a mandate on insurance, as he drew that distinction between his and Ms. Clinton's proposal during the debates.
"One of the few specifics was that it did not have a mandate on insurance, as he drew that distinction between his and Ms. Clinton's proposal during the debates."
Guess B. Hussein Obama lied huh??
"There was zero net job growth from 2000 to 2009."
There has been negative net job growth from 2009 to 2012, too.
But, the 'net job growth' from 2000 to 2009, which includes the decling growth that spurred the tax cuts in the first place, as well as the job loss resulting from the Pelosi recession. Employment fell from 132 million in 2000 to a low of just under 130 million 1n 2003, at which time the second round of tax cuts was enacted. Employment then rose to a high of 138 million in Early 2008, before beginning its decline to 134 million at the beginning of 2009.
Employment stands about half a million lower now than it did at the start of 2009. While that marks an increase from its low of just over 129 million at the start of 2010, it represents a much smaller increase in total employment than was experienced by President Bush from 2003 to 2008.
But, this misses the point. I said economic growth occurs, not employment. I've cited a number of factors in the past that keep employment low, including Obamacare (since we're now allowed to call it that), the minimum wage hike, and continuing market uncertainty.
The rising stock market, GDP growth, and increased trade point to a rising economy, which results in increased income even if jobs remain flat. This is because incomes increase, driven largely (in this case) by increases from non-payroll sources: profits, dividends, and other market souces.
"Guess B. Hussein Obama lied huh??"
Here's what he said back then:
"CLINTON: [Obama & I] do have differences on health care. I believe absolutely passionately that we must have universal health care. It is a moral responsibility [to] move us to universal health care.
"OBAMA: About 95% of our plans are similar. We both set up a government plan that would [cover] pre-existing conditions. We both want to emphasize prevention. But I emphasize reducing costs. If we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it. Sen. Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it, or there will be a lot of people who don't get it. But if you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance & it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge fines to people who already don't have health care, or take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference."
Of course, that was then, this is now.
I'm betting Common is working on putting a positive spin on the Obama lie about mandatory coverage as we speak.... so to speak.
He may just be mowing the lawn. I know I've got to mow mine again, now that it's finally decided to rain.
Won't change mine either.
See no reason to base my decision on a made for TV debate filled with political rhetoric, false promises, and half-truths aimed at satisfying their base. I'd rather "think for myself"
"Just in case you forgot: By nearly any conceivable measure, the George W. Bush administration (2000-08) economic performance was the worst of any President since Hoover."
Democrats keep repeating that mantra, but it isn't true.
The economy began to decline at the end of the Clinton presidency - recession by some standards, a downturn by others. The events of 9/11/01 further damaged a weakening economy. Even so, we were able to recover (the Bush Tax Cuts may or may not have helped, depending on to whom you talk), but by 2005 we were back on track, and we experienced record tax reciept levels in 2007 and 2008. The Pelosi recession hit, begun by a decline in the market that began on the first week of the first month of the first fiscal year under her gavel.
Of course, one of the reasons given for re-electing Mr. Obama, whose record is far worse than Mr. Bush's, is to give him a chance to redeem himself. That is too big of a gamble, methinks.
That also leaves me with the question: Since the Democrats constantly charge that the Republicans have deliberately derailed the economy under Mr. Obama, did the Democrats deliberately derail the economy under Mr. Bush?
Certainly, they took a thriving economy, with the Dow Jones Industrials at historic highs, tax receipts at historic highs, and GDP growth climbing, and turned that around within one year of assuming control of both houses of Congress. They refused to pass budgets, they blocked Republican legislation, the threatened to cut funding of ongoing wars.
Given that the economy seems to be recovering now that the Congress is back in Republican hands, after declining sharply in the four short years the Democrats had it, one would think charges that the Republicans are working against it would be dismissed. And, yet, they are taken seriously even as the current actions of the Democrats are ignored.
Mr. Reid continues the same devestating actions in the Senate that precipitated these events: failing to pass budget, or even debate a budget. It seems that, as long as they can get away with blaming Republicans, they will continue derailing the economy.
"Mr. Reid continues the same devastating actions in the Senate that precipitated these events: failing to pass budget, or even debate a budget."
What do you suppose the republican Congressmen would have done had Senator Reid proposed a sensible budget with the right combination of tax revenue increases (throught rate and loophole corrections) and Social Security/Medicare adjustments downward, and discretionary spending cuts.
They would have shouted that the democrats want to cut social security and Medicare and ignored the required revenue increases, and the stalemate would have continued.
The fact that is continually ignored is that reasonable compromise would have benefitted the President more and the republicans less, and that is the single reason why compromise was not reached. The claim that the President refused fair compromise is absolutely ridiculous.
It is equally silly to claim that Senator Reid is the only person in the nation responsible for the lack of a bi-partisan budget.
The media got a lift this morning when the government announded 114K jobs created resulting in lowering, they say, the unemployed percentqage to 7.9% (or was it 7.8% or some such number). They were joyous for Obama whose boys jumped on the news like a bear on a honeycomb.
Og course, some of the more rational media began asking some pretty pointed questions about its valadity.
In the end it just depends upon how you choose to look at it
Common, the Democrats control the Senate, Reid is the majority leader and runs the show. Who else to blame?
Wheels, just loved your comment "So using the Nancy Pelosi strategy.... we will just have to elect him (Romney) to see what is in his plan.
Is that logical thinking Common?"
Sounds logical to me, Wheels!
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 9:50 PM
Thank you Voyager... Common chooses to ignore me, only answering without referencing me, but he hasn't touched the election of Romney to see what's in him. I'll take it as an affirmative from him. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Double Dribble. I am going to have to learn to wait on the servers at the Missourian a little longer before hammering it a 2nd time.
It's good to know Obama has managed to get unemployment numbers down close to what he inherited.
"They would have shouted that the democrats want to cut social security and Medicare and ignored the required revenue increases, and the stalemate would have continued."
We'll never know. For three years, Mr. Reid has not put forth a budget, even when the Democrats had control of both houses. Ergo, your claim is without merit.
The House cannot keep the Senate from passing a budget. Nor can the minority in the Senate, since the budget requires only a simple majority to pass.
The truth is, Mr. Reid doesn't want a budget passed because he doesn't want the CBO analyzing it. They do not want the CBO reporting that the Senate budget proposes yet another trillion dollar plus deficit. No budget, no budget analysis. It's that simple.
We don't really have to worry about Mr. Reid proposing a 'sensible budget', anyway...
"It is equally silly to claim that Senator Reid is the only person in the nation responsible for the lack of a bi-partisan budget."
No. It is not. He is the single person responsible for preventing one from being presented on the floor.
"Senate Democratic leaders do not plan to propose a budget this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Friday, saying that they had already done so with the debt-ceiling agreement.
"We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year -- it's done we don't need to do it," Reid said, according to The Hill.
"Democrats have said that the agreement reached to raise the debt ceiling set spending for Fiscal Year 2012.
"North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, has said he will mark up a budget resolution this year, per an agreement he made with Budget Committee ranking member and Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions.
"Technically, Conrad marking up a budget resolution, but not ever bringing it to the floor, per Reid's comments, does not violate that agreement, conceded a Republican aide, but the staffer went on to blast Reid's comment.
"What's the point of marking up a budget if you're not going to bring it to the floor for debate and vote?" fumed the Republican aide.
"It's been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people. Now, once again, the Senate's ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership," said Sessions in a statement."
"The fact that is continually ignored is that reasonable compromise would have benefitted the President more and the republicans less, and that is the single reason why compromise was not reached. The claim that the President refused fair compromise is absolutely ridiculous. "
The President doesn't have anything to do with the Senate passing a budget. Nor can compromise be reached if there is not budget presented on which to compromise.
"The House cannot keep the Senate from passing a budget."
Article 1, Section. 7. Clause 1
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
The Senate MAY propose, but does not need to pass a separate budget. The budget bill still needs to originate in the House. Agreeing to use the prior year's budget is no different than calling it a "new" budget.
There is little sense in the Senate developing their own budget until a compromise on the principle of combining spending decreases and revenue increases is reached. The Senate is agreeable to spending cuts, but as long as the House continues an irraltional insistance on not revising the tax code to generate a fairer system and increased revenue.
"There is little sense in the Senate developing their own budget until a compromise on the principle of combining spending decreases and revenue increases is reached."
Still on that theme of raising taxes without curing the problem I see.
If the President would take his ideas and get the hell out of the way, business would take care of raising revenue with a more robust economy. Since it is highly unlikely that this Narcissistic President is going to do that... it is incumbent on us to replace him.
You forgot something...... It's Bush's fault!
A new estimate puts the deficit for the just-completed 2012 budget year at $1.1 trillion, the second straight year of trillion dollar deficits on Speaker Boehner's watch.
He's in charge of the checkbook, remember.
But Pelosi wasn't... right Common?
Maybe this will change some minds.
This my friends is where America is heading with the liberals at the helm. I did not say Democrats, I said Liberals.
They want their 'Freebies' and they want them NOW!
"...budget year at $1.1 trillion..."
And on top of that, during the republican primary, Candidate Romney was asked if he would accept $1 in tax increase for $10 in spending cuts. His answer was no, which means that he would not agree to $100 billion in tax increases for $900 billion in spending cuts.
No wonder the republicans are causing this contnuation of deficits.
It's OK fellas.
The economy is wonderful.
We are seeing enormous job growth.
Unemployment is at an all time low.
There are plenty of jobs for whoever wants one.
We are under-regulated, under-taxed and the National debt is getting paid off.
The number of people on welfare is way down.
The cost of food is about the same as is was in 2008 and price of fuel hasn't really doubled.
Plus, we are all safer than we were.
No need to vote for a businessman for president...
Nothing needs to be fixed.
We have Obama.
Also, I have a mule for sale.
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
The budget resolution does not raise revenue. It establishes a sense of the Senate for spending priorities. The budget resolution is not a bill at all and therefore does not require concurence with the House for initiation.
The House has, in fact, proposed a fairer tax system, but it is not 'fairer' in the sense that Democrats think of fairness - which consists of taxing the rich to give to the poor.
-- Posted by Rɨck on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 8:36 AM --
Sorry. As I said yesterday, I needed to mow the lawn. It takes a good four hours to mow the whole thing. I hope this was the last time it needed mowing for the year.
"No wonder the republicans are causing this contnuation of deficits."
The deficit has been declining since the Republicans took over the Congress, despite the Democrats' insistence that we keep limping along on 'auto-spend' rather than pass a meaningful budget that addresses the problem.
"And on top of that, during the republican primary, Candidate Romney was asked if he would accept $1 in tax increase for $10 in spending cuts. "
"The last thing We Want to Do Is Raise Taxes During a Recession" - Barack Obama -
"The last thing We Want to Do Is Raise Taxes During a Recession"
The tax rates were higher during the 90's without any detrimental effect on the 2%. The reference to not raising taxes was to the 98%. Furthermore the recession has been over since the end of the President Bush administration. And the economy has been growing for the past 4 years, ggrowing slowly but not declining.
Why would candidate Romney not agree to $100 billion in tax increases for $900 billion in spending cuts?
"Why would candidate Romney not agree to $100 billion in tax increases for $900 billion in spending cuts?"
Ask him. I don't speak for him. I would suspect that it might have something to do with the government's propensity to spend whatever income it has, plus. Give them more income, and they'll increase spending all the more. They promise spending cuts 'down the road' in exchange for tax increases today. Most of those spending cuts never materialize, becuase they are not really 'cuts' at all, merely reductions in the rate they increase spending.
If want to borrow $50,000 to buy a new luxury car, but instead to borrow only $35,000 to buy a mid-size, that is not a cut in spending, it's simply a smaller increase. However, in Washingtonspeak, that qualifies as a 'cut'. The difference is, the government would borrow the $50,000 anyway, spend the $35,000 on the care, and declare the extra $15,000 a 'dividend' to spend on other things. That is, after all, what Mr. Obama is doing with his talk about the 'dividend' brought about by winding down the wars he claims were never 'paid for' in the first place.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM
Good ol Missouri.
We cut MODOT workers this year and the nut jobs said the highways would go to heck. They seem to be able to keep up. Medicaid was reduced years ago and they said said this will ruin the lives of thousands but they found out many that were cut off was really able to take care of themselves.
Keeping these things at the state level keeps Washington politicians from using it to buy votes. Missouri does a good job handling our money and I would be less worried about Obamacare if it was handled by our own people.
Or we can go the route of Spain and wait until these guys totally crash the system. We are almost at the point of no return.
"Or we can go the route of Spain..."
60% unemployment can certainly make a nation's population feel grumpy I guess.
Looking for something else I ran across this:
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 8:05 PM
Shapley, I understand, I had a mower like that one time! :) :)
America's youth will pay for our folly!
"Shapley, I understand, I had a mower like that one time!"
When my old mower finally wore out, I went to the store to buy a new one. The salesmen showed me a flashy new mower, which he said would cut my mowing time to fraction of what it had been. I bought the mower, took it home and put it to work.
The next day, I took it back to the store. I told the salesman It took ten times as long to mow with this new mower as it took with the old one, and it did a lousy job, at that.
He said he couldn't understand the problem. He looked at the mower, filled it with gas, and gave the pull cord a try. The engine roared to life. At that point, I jumped back and yelled: "What the Heck is THAT????"
"At this point , I headed for the nearest tree and did a head-on collision to stop the pile of junk ."
Sometimes free stuff ain't worth the money you paid for it...
My wife says, "Every year it costs $100 to get the mower going again it just ain't worth it! I say we let the horses in the yard!" (Geeze, here we go again, I think).
So, every year we have the same argument. So far, I'm winning. The horses are still in the pasture.(They always eat something they are not supposed to and knock things over and break them. Not mention the things they leave behind).
See, the difference between us is when I get on a piece of equipment that hasn't been started for 5 or 6 months, I expect there to be problems. So I approach the thing with a certain amount of resolve. Not her, boy! By God that thing better start when she wants it to and never break down.
I'm just glad I'm not the lawn mower. :)
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 8:52 PM
May I suggest here that it might be better for you to be a lawnmower than.... your arse to be grass and her be the lawnmower, after she reads your last post. ;-)
Was that the same lawnmower I helped you dispose of?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 9:23 PM
Shush, I didn't tell her. :)
-- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 10:14 PM
Did I guess right the other day that your wife is only about 5'4" and you tiptoe through the tulips when you get on the bad side of her? ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Wheels, no, she's 5'8" and really knows how to use a T-post driver. Dang. But inside she's a tender as an all-day pot roast. And I wouldn't call it tiptoeing, I'd prefer to call it soft walking. ;)
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 12:11 AM
Just get this mental image sometimes when someone is talking. Maybe comes from my own experiences. :-)
I had the same lawnmower for 20 years. I bought it when I moved in the house and kept it until I sold that old barn 20 years later. Well, almost.
The damned thing gave up the ghost during the last mowing. I mean quit, kuput, clunk right in the middle of the job. So I paid the neighbor boy to finish the job and swore never to touch one of those confounded contraptions agasin.
And I haven't...so far.
I decided to put my 30 year old 42" cut Dixon ZTR into retirement this spring and went out and purchased a new Dixon ZTR but 52"cut. That lazy thing got to stay parked about half the time because of the drouth.
Had about $75 worth of work done on the old Dixon and retired it to the farm. Decided since it was there to try and convert some cow pasture into yard and spot for a little R&R. That old girl has never performed better. Took some doing but I was able to trim some about 15 to 18 inch fescue down into a halfway decent looking lawn. With a little overseeding I should have more than twice the amount of grass to cut next year as I did last year. Smart.... huh??
Wow - even "Big Bird" is giving Obama a smack down. Obama used Big Bird in one of his campaign commercials and Big Bird has responded with a "leave me out of your campaign" message. The story:
It's funny to see Big Bird telling Obama to back off. It's sad that Obama would "approve" of a commercial with Big Bird when the country has serious issues to face. This is all the man has left or as Obama said in 2008 - "When you don't have a good record to run on, you make a big campaign about small issues". True that.
Posting a comment requires free registration: