The debates on the Debates

His principles are exactly what you saw last night. "I will say anything to be elected." I think to a large extent that's true for anyone who gets close to having a major party nomination in that past few decades but Romney takes it to an entirely new level of BS. He's now going to cut taxes and it won't increase the deficit. Oh, and he's going to put 780 billion back into Medicare and a couple trillion into the DOD. But it won't costs anyone anything and the debt will be decreased by the "magic programs" he's not going to give you details on until after you elect him. I smell bull shit... a lot of bull shit.

 

Are you saying that what Romney wants to do has more value to you than what he's willing or capable of doing? Who gives a shit what he wants to do. At the end of the day, he's a civil servant and is expected to do what is in the best interest of the country and all of its citizens. I'm not looking for a king or demi-god.

Trouble with the right wing is they vote for a candidate for all the wrong reasons. I could give a shit if he goes to church every Sunday or holds the "principled" belief that poverty is the result of a lack of motivation. If he can do the job, I don't care what personal opinions he holds.

I think Obama stated well, his approach to dealing with a very partisan Congress. He's compromised where he felt he could and stood his ground on Republican proposals he determined were not in the best interest of the country, when necessary. I didn't hear anything of the sort from Romney. In fact, I have no better clue as to what his principles are or what sort of leader he will be, after the debate than I did before it.

So what are Romney's principles, Ace and how do you feel they will benefit the country in his role as President. Would you prefer to see him stand his principled ground on every issue rather than be willing to compromise in the interest of the country?

Principles rule. Geez, I'm too old for this nonsense.

Greed - More wealth for the wealthy. Sorry but no matter how I push the pieces around, it always reveals the same ugly picture

Fairness - Share the burden and be willing to go the extra mile, if you're able, during an economic downturn with a high deficit.

 

So, this 700 billion or so for Medicare, which I understand to be savings based on cutting waste and fraud and are agreed will not hit the benefit receiver and will actually help Medicare - he's going to restore all that waste and fraud?

Gotcha.

I'm also wondering why he isn't going to cut anything from the military - I guess there is no plan for reduction of activity abroad then? If there was, surely there would be some reduction in the borrowing required!

I understand his plan to cover people with pre-existing consitions is only for those with continuous coverage (and won't include those with personal plans) .. err.. just as it always was then and that was causing many people an issue.

I also understand that Obama's health panels will ration helathcare even though they are specifically barred from doing so. OK.

I understand that Romney will repeal Obamacare. Doing so will, as I understand it, increase costs, so cuts will need to be made elsewhere, won't they? I don't know what he will cut (apart from PBS), because he won't say.

Oh, and the planned $5 trillion in cuts (over ten years) that appear in his plans don't exist, according to Romney. Riiiight. And anyway they will be more than adequately covered by closing unspecified "loopholes".

He has a nice haircut, though and clearly has convictions. Well, maybe he should have convictions but has thus far evaded the law.

Snake. Oil.

But he does wobble his head like Reagan did.

Oh, my. What to do?

 

The strangest part of the whole debate is the fact that for once, Romney was not preaching to his usual choir. He back-pedaled towards the middle on nearly every issue he's addressed out on the stump. If this was preaching to the choir, his choir and running mate need to be warned of Romney's sharp turn left.

 

the tax cuts are a distraction from the real problem which is spending. the small increase or decrease in taxes for the rich amount to practically nothing in regards to the national deficit. it's just to get people engaged in the class warfare debate instead of grilling our politicians on them increasing the national debt. its cool to say the rich should pay their fair share and whatnot but the numbers dont work. we have politicians that are going to spend more than the government takes in year after year no matter how much is paid in. they will just borrow more if they dont have the funds.

we are at the point were we are adding TRILLIONS a year to the debt instead of billions. you could take everything these 'rich' people own and still not pay off the the debt, and it would be a one time proposition leaving the nation with broke businessman and job creators. there's no reason to give people more money who can't even freeze spending at the previous year's level. it's just throwing good money after bad.

 

Freezing spending isn't the choice either. What needs to be done is a reduction in spending and an increase in revenue. Part of that increase should come from an increase in taxes, the rest from a stronger economy where more people are paying taxes.

What would be great for the US (for any Nation) is a simplification of the tax code. It still needs to be a progressive taxation (flat taxes are not a fair tax) but there are way too many loopholes and exemptions. Of course, nobody has the balls to do that sort of thing.

Freezing spending just doesn't make sense.

 

freezing spending isn't even a choice, it's just a step in the right direction. if you keep giving more money to people who keep spending more than you give them year after year you will get the same results: more debt. that would leave a rational person to believe no matter what sum of money you hand them they will spend it and then some. that's why increasing revenue at this juncture serves little to no purpose other than to fuel the class warfare fire.

a spending freeze would at least let me know they acknowledge there is huge problem that needs to be addressed and maybe they are worthy of extra cash now to pay down debts. freeze spending, then we can have a legit debate on what taxes should be. until then no thanks.

btw a simplification of the tax code is something everyone except accountants and irs agents could agree on.

i dont even fall into this elite tax code bracket, i just see it as the an ultimate distraction from the real problem of out of control spending.

 

samcol, I think what you mean to say is, Freeze spending increases.

Otherwise, you make no sense whatsoever.

 

really? you know what i meant. it's used that way everyday in the world of politics. a spending freeze is by definition not increasing spending on the next budget. it doesn't mean eliminating spending all together.

 

I agree that the "war on drugs" was grounded in racism. Who has taken up the fight to correct this wrong? One of the reasons I am on the fence between the Libertarian and Republican Parties. I just wish Libertarians tool a stronger stance on national defense.
--- merged: Oct 4, 2012 at 10:31 PM ---

As a business person one can put countless hours in developing a well written business plan, then within the first day of conducting business you have enough input to modify the plan. Some put too much emphasis on the plan and not enough on modifications due to actual inputs and feedback. Going through the experience a few times one recognizes the values of a plan and the value of adapting while keeping both in perspective. Romney has a plan and he has the capacity to adapt given conditions - some don't understand how he talks about these things in a political context. And perhaps his problem is in his ineffectiveness in communicating these things.

 

ron paul did multiple times during debates. gary johnson is currently taking up the fight.

national defense is tricky. by national defense, do you mean continuing the war on terror and the tsa style police state that's been implemented since 9/11? the libertarians aren't on board with that. if you want wars and torture to continue then mitt or barrack would be the best choice, or same choice i would say.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdpcggfIt0U&feature=player_embedded#
!

 

Lets start with the fact that we do not need to eliminate the total debt entirely. We simply to reduce it to a manageable percent of GDP.

Then look at the biggest contributors to future debt growth and number one is extending the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket....to the tune of $3-4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Then look at where to cut discretionary spending that would have the least adverse economic and social impacts...either defense spending (nearly 60%) of total discretionary spending or domestic programs. I would cut defense spending by several $trillion over the next 10 years and freeze overall domestic spending (but not across the board -- we need spending on infrastructure, education, R&D, alternative energy development, etc. to remain competitive in a global economy). Many domestic programs would see significant cuts not very popular with Democrats.

That would bring the debt down by 1/3 over the next 10 years.

This is close to the Obama framework....after the economy is stabilized.

That leaves entitlements -- social security and medicare and I dont have a solution, other than perhaps some level of means testing (not popular with my friends on the left).

What wont work is extending tax cuts for the wealthiest that do no stimulate economic growth or investment, but simply create even greater income inequality.

And increasing defense spending and gutting domestic programs that only add to the burdens of the middle class and working poor, making them even less able to contribute to economic growth.

I think the distinctions between the two basic approaches are evident in the numbers.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2012 4:17 AM ---
A visual aid on the spending side.

Both want to make the $1+ trillion discretionary pie smaller over the next 10 years.



Obama wants to freeze the rainbow overall (some increase, some cuts) and cut the gray.

Romney wants to gut the rainbow and increase the gray.

 

I got a little upset when Romney stated "we ALL believe that we are the SAME God's children......" ummmm you are a Mormon, by DEFINITION you have a different view of God than the Bible Belt and Christian Right you were trying to sell yourself to.

Death and Afterlife - Mormon Beliefs - ReligionFacts

 

Really. Given the whole debt ceiling issue, I can't be sure what *anyone* is implying anymore.

 

The biggest impact would come from getting people back to work. The social security cost goes up significantly in times of economic crisis when people lose jobs and income.

 

Cutting the Military seems like a smart thing to do (given how much money the US spends on its military, especially in light of what every other nation doesn't spend). Of course, cutting that spending could result in fewer soldiers which leads to an increase in unemployed.

 

As does cutting defense spending overall. Virginia, now considered a swing state, relies heavily on defense contracts and the manufacturing jobs they provide.

 

No one. The only person in politics I know of who've even came close to admitting why is Hillary Clinton who said "It's too profitable."
--- merged: Oct 5, 2012 at 5:38 AM ---

I think the loss in employment due to lower numbers of military members is only part of the problem. If you really cut into the DOD budget there's a ton of folks employed in making everything from weapons to uniforms to MRE's that would need to find other jobs.

On our military we spend something like more then the next 16 countries combined. If a large chuck of that spending go away so does a lot of employment. I'm all for cutting on military spending but have no illusions those cuts will not have negative side effects.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2012 at 5:52 AM ---

I should have scrolled down to read your post before making mine. But yes, exactly. Look what happened to many towns after Clinton close based after the end of the "cold war." I took a driving vacation not long after my discharge from the Navy. I had (still have) military ID and knew gas prices at the Px were usually lower then at the local AM/PM or BP. The number of bases on my map that were closed and the towns that surrounded them turned to instant ghost towns was a little shocking.

Again I'm all for military spending cuts but there are ripple effects to these cuts.