Analysis Of The Obama-Romney Debate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-17/analysis-obama-romney-debate
President Obama went up against Gov. Mitt Romney last night in a town-hall-style debate. After a lackluster performance during the first debate two weeks ago, the president had something to prove. By nearly all accounts, he came across much tougher and more engaged. He challenged his rival for the White House on differences of policy and plans for the nation's future. The two men sparred over energy and economic policy, tax cuts and immigration. And they squared off over the best path to improve U.S. competitiveness and create jobs. Diane and her guests talk about what Americans learned from the candidates and whether it will make a difference in November.
Guests
Michael Hirsh
chief correspondent at National Journal magazine and author of "At War with Ourselves: Why America Is Squandering its Chance to Build a Better World."
Linda Killian
journalist, senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center and author of "The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents."
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
An economic dip and nobody cares about the environment anymore. America's vision for the long term.
ecgberht wrote:
"Ignorant, neophyte, lightweight, call it what you will. The President thought he could throw near 1T at the economy and it would heal itself. I really believe the thought did not go much deeper than that. Google the Recovery Act and look at where the money went. As for "infrastructure", that's part of what the first stimulus was supposed to address! Remember "shovel ready" jobs? Now, four years later, he wants more "investment"? (Btw, whenever you hear "investment", it means "spending", it just sounds more "business-like" and less "political"). No. Enough. It's time to try something new."
Whether it is time to try something new is the question. But it is not for me to answer that one... From an observer's perspective, it does not seem to me that investment in infrastructure was the wrong call. It is still what the government (through public/private partnerships, perhaps) ought to do. The current state of the infrastructure impedes US economic development and prosperity.
The salvation of the financial services industry avoided a global collapse of all economic activity. This would have been a disaster.
Ferdnam wrote:
"I need one minute... The sentence I had written disappeared. Eliminate the limit on Social Security witholdings".
Well, that says two things. First, you're a re-distributionist. It's a little like being a Baptist, but you can drink and dance. That's fine. It's your privilege to think that way - I think it's immoral, but that's just me. Second, sorry, but there isn't enough money (see previous post on taxing the 1% at 100%) - plus, you'd never get it passed. But whatever.
The problem with SS is that the "trust fund", as you know, does not exist. The accumulations of the Baby Boom generation while they worked from the 60's to today (i.e. the SS surplus) has been spent. Your SS account is just a number on a piece of paper of how much the government owes you when you retire, but there isn't any actual money there. It's been replaced by T-Bills (read: debt certificates, promises to pay back the trust fund). SS is now upside down. It's time to begin drawing down the "surplus" ... except when we look in the cookie jar, there's nothing but ... IOUs. Right now, the FGs only option is to print the money. Between medicare AND SS, I've seen estimates north of 100T of unfunded liabilities for current and future retirees living today. Go ahead, Ferdnam, try getting that through withholding.
David Adame wrote:
"Why do the Republicans have to polticize this Bengazi incident and why does this party think that POTUS would mislead the public? "
What is there for (Obama) to gain? Losing American lives and property for nothing?
Liberals are so hypocritical. Ever heard of weapons of mass destruction? Weren't you the very people "politicizing" then?
"Lizzie M wrote:
Did anyone else hear Governor Romney say essentially that we'll have to limit ourselves to one deduction (education, home mortgage, health insurance etc.) in exchange for a lower tax rate?
But Hey! any capital gains we take in won't be taxed. Don't know about you, but capital gains are the last tax we worry about.
October 17, 2012 - 10:24 am"
Actually not. I suspect the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed because the elderly Couple who wants to sell their $28,000 house, now worth $500,000, are expected to pay Capital Gains on their "Profits". Like a Business, they should be allowed to deduct all the expenses of maintaining their biggest Capital Investment, but are not.
That Deduction is a favorite target of Romney and the Republicans.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
@ Lizzie M & mchaun: Actually, as I recall what he said is that you would receive a set amount that you could apply any combination of deductions against. I think the number he threw out there was 28K?
Ferdnam wrote:
"From an observer's perspective, it does not seem to me that investment in infrastructure was the wrong call. It is still what the government (through public/private partnerships, perhaps) ought to do. The current state of the infrastructure impedes US economic development and prosperity".
It would have been fine if it had been done. But there were no "shovel ready" jobs. That's the point. A couple of years later the President thought that was a big joke. Infrastructure is, Constitutionally one of the few things the FG OUGHT to do, money was set aside for it, but it was never used for infrastructure. Instead, money went to funeral directors and other goofy stuff. Look up the details of what money in the Recovery Act was spent on. It's a travesty and it was almost 1T! That's why I said I don't think Obama realized that it was important HOW the stiumuls money was spent. I think he just thought, "put 1T in the economy, it gets jump started and I move on to Health Care". But the economy doesn't work that way.
"The salvation of the financial services industry avoided a global collapse of all economic activity. This would have been a disaster".
I think you're conflating stimulus with TARP, but that's ok. TARP was started under President Bush. At the time I thought it was the right idea. Now, I'm not so sure because we are back in the Too Big To Fail soup again. George Will has an excellent column on this from the last week or so. Google him and you'll find it.
mchaun wrote:
"I suspect the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed because the elderly Couple who wants to sell their $28,000 house, now worth $500,000, are expected to pay Capital Gains on their "Profits". "
Wrong as usual.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/capital-gains-home-sale-tax-...
@ ecgberht & Ferdnam: Infrastructure and ensuring that our people and nation are safe are what the government should be spending money on. Right on the money. When the government starts picking winners and losers in the private business sector is when the economy gets jacked around and money wasted.
ecgberht wrote:
"Well, that says two things. First, you're a re-distributionist. It's a little like being a Baptist, but you can drink and dance. That's fine. It's your privilege to think that way - I think it's immoral, but that's just me."
I know nothing about the Baptists... But I do believe that there are advantages to having a society where people are taken care of when in need. I also believe that Social Security is and should be the safe part of anyone's financial retirement portfolio.
"Second, sorry, but there isn't enough money (see previous post on taxing the 1% at 100%) - plus, you'd never get it passed. But whatever."
Yes, there would be enough money because there should be a sliding scale on disbursements to SS recipients... Now, would it pass? That is the question. You are right!
"The problem with SS is that the "trust fund", as you know, does not exist... It's been replaced by T-Bills (read: debt certificates, promises to pay back the trust fund)..."
Treasury bills (or government bonds) are among the safest investments possible. I guess that we are dealing here with a profound distrust of your own government... I don't really feel that it is my role, here, to debate with you with regard to your profound convictions.
Perfectly happy to discuss economics, ecology of labor, trade policy, education, health care insurance (we have already established that we are at least in partial agreement on that one) and such topics...
belt punch: Obama tried to dominate the moderater - What debate were you watching?
Out of the gate "the boss" Romney tried to pull what he did with Jim Leher - He tried to run all over the moderater in terms of his alloted time. He did this repeatedly.
In addition, as pointed out by another posting, Romney was rude to the President of the United States - on more than one occassion.
"Wait your turn" (!) How dare he! If the roles were reversed and Romney was our president, Obama talking to him as rudely as that would have sent conservatives into hi lather.
He showed every negative trait of the over bearing and entitled CEO-Boss.
We aren't voting for the "CEO" of America we're voting for the President of the United States. Obama was presidential, Romney played the type of boss that's easy to dislike and disdain.
If Americans want a taste of true democracy, for the first time, every energy should be spent pushing to reform the elecotral process. We desperately need more candidates who aren't complete pawns for special interests. The parties vet these candidates well in advance, they make sure they are pawn material. By the time a candidate makes it to presidential elections, they have gotten into bed with all the major players, and have given up any hope of maintaining a shred of dignity, autonomy, authenticity, authority. Everything the 2 party system does, is aimed at keeping all challengers out of the system. They need the illusion of choice, so they have reds and blues. They are generally happy to work with either. Because ont he issues that matter to special interests, there is no red and blue to speak of. The people think they have a choice, and the Elite can carry on with their business relatively unmaligned. Make no mistake, the Elite interests run America. And generally, they couldn't give a rat's ass about politics, religion, democracy, or anything other than preserving and expanding their interests - money, greed, power, control, skewed ideologies. The country will NEVER BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE, if this rigged system is allowed to continue! Period.
"ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"I suspect the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed because the elderly Couple who wants to sell their $28,000 house, now worth $500,000, are expected to pay Capital Gains on their "Profits". "
Wrong as usual.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/capital-gains-home-sale-tax-...
October 17, 2012 - 5:35 pm"
THE COUPLE IS EXPECTED TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON THEIR "PROFIT", YOU DSOB!!!
Intelligent people try to discuss things on this Site and you can't seem to resist sticking your nose in, muddying the waters and creating totally irrelevant Straw Men to ensure that nothing intelligent survives this Site.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
@Ferdnam
Sorry for the change of IDs. Thanks for the respectful discussion - it can be rare around here.
"Treasury bills (or government bonds) are among the safest investments possible."
I hear that a lot in this debate. The problem is, at some point, and that point is today, since obligations exceed income, you have to begin paying people from the trust fund, the accumulated surpluses, in actual money - dollars, scratch, do-re-mi - that they can spend. That money, the actual cash, has to come from somewhere. It comes from the general fund - because that's who borrowed from the SS Trust Fund in the first place. T-bills are only as safe as the General Fund's ability to honor them. In the General Fund, our outflow is already exceeding our income (hence the borrowing from China), so this adds to the debt, or, you print money and devalue the currency. Take your ugly pick. Both good reasons to hold a portion of your assets in gold - which I do.
"I guess that we are dealing here with a profound distrust of your own government".
That's a little strong. There are many people in government who want to do the right thing. Some of them are misguided as well. I also think many of them are very short-sighted and, while they may have the best of intentions at the time, in the long run, we may not have the ability to keep the committments they have made for us.
ecgberht,
Please repeat your line about the so called "trust funds" the Fed supposedly holds.
Any fund that is routinely raided for purposes other than the original purposes are not "trust"worthy at all.
mchaun wrote:
"U DSOB!!!"
Now, now, let's break this down, shall we? In your example, you have an "elderly couple" who bought a home for 28K that is now worth 500K. Of course, they don't realize any gain until they sell, but based on your assumptions, it appears that it is now time for them to assess their tax liability.
500K-28K = 472K "profit". Now based on the link I provided, you will see that since this is an elderly "couple", they are each entitled to a 250K exemption on the realized gain. 250K * 2 = 500K. 500K > 472K, therefore, there is NO tax liability to them at all.
This is no "strawman", which you still, apparently do not grasp. It's just a correction to your ridiculous statement (and I will continue to correct your mis-statements as long as you make them) that they "are expected to pay Capital Gains on their "Profits". Under the tax law, no, they are not.
HonestAbe wrote:
"ecgberht,
Please repeat your line about the so called "trust funds" the Fed supposedly holds.
Any fund that is routinely raided for purposes other than the original purposes are not "trust"worthy at all."
I didn't coin the term. But I agree with you, 100%.
"climatewiz1 wrote:
@ Lizzie M & mchaun: Actually, as I recall what he said is that you would receive a set amount that you could apply any combination of deductions against. I think the number he threw out there was 28K?
October 17, 2012 - 5:31 pm"
So, what's your point?? I just wanted to suggest why the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed, instead I'm dragged into the minutiae of Capital Gains Taxes.
Will Romney and his Bloodsucking Wall Street and Business Ass ___ociates face a $28,000 cap on their Deductions before their Capital Gains are calculated on their Not Really Capital Gains??
This stinks of just another scheme to screw the ordinary working People of the Nation while the Pigs stuff their already overflowing pockets.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
For anyone that is interested in whole stories instead of sound bites, there is a PDF available for download and deeper reading re: the Keystone Pipeline.......available at several Fed sites.
A full reading reveals that the original proposed path for the pipeline is mapped to go through part of Nebraska and through the Oglalla aquifer........underground water resources that serve literally millions of acres in that area and to the west. The report says an oil spill in that area would be catastrophic to people, crops, and all other life forms. One must also be aware that oil from tar sands is particularly toxic......and would exact a permanent obliteration of potable water if spilled. Note that a spill occurred from a pipeline last year which went undetected for a long time fouling the Kalamazoo River.......and is still not cleaned up.
The Keystone pipeline may be restarted at some point, but surely must be diverted to protect the fragile geologic structures in that area. Please also note that many property owners in Texas near the proposed terminus of that pipeline are lining up in droves to oppose its completion in their state.......imagine: Texas oil folks opposing an oil pipeline.
Something worth at least a little more analysis before "pulling the trigger".
Does Mitt include GE in his 47% comment? GE paid zip in taxes and has unfettered access to the US marketplace.
Poor old Jack Welch.......being labeled by his cronie Mitt as a "victim" dependent on the government.
Obama complains constantly about the “mess he inherited” --- which says more than he and his supporters realize: That is, it means he had no clue about what he was taking on! Well, with no experience in his background for the awesome job of leader of the free world, and president of 300 million Americans, how COULD he comprehend or be prepared for what he was about to (egotistically) claim he could do?? He should be ashamed of how naive - indeed, deceptive! -- he was in 2008 to think he could do this job if the mess was so great that it was impossible for ANYone (even Clinton!) to fix! He either lied in 2008 about his ability, or he didn't comprehend the situation. Both bad!
mchaun wrote:
"I just wanted to suggest why the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed, instead I'm dragged into the minutiae of Capital Gains Taxes."
No, actually YOU brought up the "minutiae" of Capital Gains taxes.
You said ...
""I suspect the Mortgage Interest Deduction was allowed because the elderly Couple who wants to sell their $28,000 house, now worth $500,000, are expected to pay Capital Gains on their "Profits"."
Your example was incorrect as was your understanding of tax law in this country. There's no shame in that. A smart person would have just dropped the subject and moved on.
Q: whatever happened to third party candidates? Answer: we handcuff them to a chair for 8 hrs. My kind of democracy! http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/17/green_partys_jill_stein_cheri_hon...
roland wrote: "Q: whatever happened to third party candidates? Answer: we handcuff them to a chair for 8 hrs. My kind of democracy!"
Human evolution in thought processes move faster than plate tectonics but viewed from a life span of maybe 80 years seem only slightly faster at best.
Candy Crowley IS NOT backing down from her real-time-fact-check,
despite what conservatives have fantasized here today:
“Not a backtrack?” O’Brien wondered.
“No!” Crowley said. “Now, did the president say, ‘This was an act of terror’? The president did not say [that], he said, these ‘acts of terror.’ But he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi so I don’t think that’s a leap.”
What makes conservatives allergic to the truth?
PART #2:
What is most needed in the US's presidential elections is answers to:
2) "If you are re-elected/elected, and if the economic policies that you are campaigning on are passed by the House of Representatives and Senate and subsequently these economic policies end up not working and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough- what policies will you advocate to raise govt revenues, IE: what, if any, types of taxes will you endorse being raised??"
3) "If you are re-elected/elected, and if the economic policies that you are campaigning on are passed by the House of Representatives and Senate and subsequently these economic policies end up not working and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough- what policies will you advocate to lower govt expenditures, IE: what, if any, cuts to govt services and programmes will you endorse??
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
(non-US-citizen)
Suggestions for campaign and election reform:
1. American citizens will be limited to ONE elective term in office per LIFETIME.
2. All elective offices will be six years; no exceptions.
3. At the end of an elective term, the office holder will receive one year's severance pay and benefits. No lifetime benefits will be offered.
4. Campaigning for office will be limited to three months prior to Election Day. Campaigning outside of this timeframe will be strictly forbidden.
5. All statements by office seekers found to be untrue will result in that indidividual being disqualified and forbidden to ever seek office again.
6. All campaign financing will be strictly limited to the absolute minimum possible. And it must be strictly enforced.
And this is just for starters. I'm sure others would have other ideas. The current elective farce that we are plagued with HAS to be changed.
Jim Gamble wrote: Rose Garden "What makes conservatives allergic to the truth?"
That MIGHT have made sense if it wasn't followed by a couple of weeks of an all out misinformation campaign by the entire Obama administration to blame the movie.
As far as Crowley, this will be her first and last debate. Her credibility has been shattered.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"Candy Crowley IS NOT backing down from her real-time-fact-check,
despite what conservatives have fantasized here today:"
She can say what she wants today, but initially, she backtracked. I posted the quote earlier in this thread.
She and her Administration can spin this however they want as well. There is a simple question that you cannot answer. If on September 12th the President identified the Benghazi attack as "a terrorist attack", why did they (UN Rep, Secy of State, and President) spend the next two weeks denying that it was a terrorist attack and insisting that it was a spontaneous mob action about a video? And if he knew it was a terrorist attack on American soil (as the consulate is), why did he then get on a plane and fly to Las Vegas for a fund rasier? When President Bush suffered his one and only terrorist attack (under Obama we have had at least three) he wanted to come to Washington/New York though he was prevented for a time by Secret Service.
From the day it happened we heard all of the following:
(Now) it's a terrorist attack
It's not a terrorist attack
It's about a video
It's a spontaneous attack
Within 24 hours, later Capitol Hill testimony shows "everyone" (Administration, security agencies, etc.) knew it was a terrorist attack and knew it was Al Qaida so they cannot continue to say "we didn't know for sure we were gathering information" Yeah. (The fact that it took place on 9/11 should have been a hint!).
You cannot have it both ways. The administration at best hid facts from the American people and at worst, sent Susan Rice out to lie to them.
Oh ... and PP is right ... Candy Crowley has asked her last debate question.
pee pee tic wrote a typical Republican response: The Republican party's huge mountain of BS is nothing compared to the only example we can think of.
Birthers
Jobbers
WMD
Binders full of women
Romney's tax plan
Ryan's "budget"
Zero job creation
the polls are rigged
Gosh, I could go on and on. But why bother when you'll just follow your brainwashing anyway? I guess when the facts don't support you, you can always make up new ones? Such as: if the President didn't have all the facts IMMEDIATELY, he must be lying.