or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Romney debated well tonight, but didn't do enough to change the race
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Romney debated well tonight, but didn't do enough to change the race

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 

And that was a lame zinger he tried.

 

That's my assessment. Yours?

post #2 of 65

A carefully scripted and well acted performance on the part of the 2 puppets, giving the appearance of choice when in reality there is none.

 

I have no interest in the debates unless they include the third candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 65
Thread Starter 

I was disappointed that it was all 90-second prepared speeches rather than actual back-and-forth debating.

post #4 of 65

These are not debates. The system won't allow for a real debate. Here we have two élitist traitors who are aiming for a maximum-security, uber-surveillence, fear-driven neo-fascist state. They are both after eviscerating the middle class, criminalizing and enslaving the poor, and waging perpetual war on anything that moves which is out of sync with their agenda. Their complicit lackeys in the Goebbels-lookalike corporate weasel media only field softball questions.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #5 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

giving the appearance of choice when in reality there is none.

Begging the question.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 65

My assessment is that Romney will do pretty well on hitting Obama on his record for the few questions that he manages to steer that way.

 

The Democratic Operatives/Media Pundits will declare Obama "held court" or won outright for not having to deal with Obamacare, his record or the current miserable state of the economy. Pardon me, they will say he presented his plan for the second term better (that darn Romney spent time attacking Obama instead of presenting who he is to the audience) and showed more empathy. (Romney is a robot.) 

 

Afterwards conservative bloggers will compile a list of the questions and we can ponder why even with no supposed media bias, all the questions dealt with the 47%, attempts to ban contraception, women, gay marriage, the Dream Act, and "dog whistles."

 

Anyone care to donate to a cause for each one of these I get right?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Begging the question.

 

Irony.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #8 of 65

Nah, it's not irony.  Begging the question is par for the course for you.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 65

Mitt Romney debates fairly well, but it's not enough.  Also fairly ironic that he's attacking Obama's economic performance, when the American economy has done surprisingly well. 

 

Romney should have attacked less.  I know it's the way Americans play politics, but you can't do that when you're already the lesser-liked underdog.  I do think Romney's economic plan is better, but Obama played things in a way that the average person would probably understand better. 

 

In my personal opinion, Romney's economic plan is better.  But I think Obama still takes the election. 
 

post #10 of 65

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 65

Hmm....not much opining on the actual outcome of last night's debate.   Perhaps that's because Romney was almost universally declared the winner?  

 

CNN Poll:  67% say Romney won.  Highest since survey started in 1980.  

 

Chris Matthews in total meltdown.  What was he doing?  

 

Andrew Sullivan:  This was a disaster for Obama.  

 

Headline on Times 24/7:  Seismic shift; undecideds flock to Romney 

 

NYT:  Romney wins praise; Obama faulted as flat.

 

Micheal Moore:  This is what happens when you pick John Kerry as your debate coach.  

 

 

 

So, it's clearly established that Romney debated well.  The vast majority of people agree he won, and convincingly. The same majority thinks Obama was absolutely horrible.  The question refers to second part of this thread...whether it impacts the election.    That obviously remains to be seen.  However, the focus group that Luntz ran (above) apparently shifted dramatically towards Romney.  Luntz said he had never seen such a shift as a result of one debate.  Time will tell, as always.   

 

In terms of my reaction, I thought that Romney won pretty convincingly.  His best line regarded tax breaks for sending jobs overseas:  "I've been in business for 25 years, and I have no idea what you're talking about."    I did not expect the reaction sampled from focus groups, nor the media.  I thought it would just be spun by each side as usual, with MSNBC saying it was a draw or a narrow Obama win, and Fox saying Romney clearly won.   Obviously I underestimated.  Other thoughts, some of which might surprise you.    

 

  • I don't think Obama looked as bad as the media is saying he did.  I do think he looked irritated and almost angry a few times.   
  • Body language was key.  Romney was gesturing constantly and making eye contact with the President.  Obama seemed almost asleep.  
  • Obama came off as a professorial policy wonk, while Romney came off as an aggressive business leader with a plan.  
  • I did not like Romney's "you don't pick the winners...you just pick the losers" line, nor his "if you're over 60, you don't have to listen any further."  Neither was particularly damaging to him, and I know what he meant, but they weren't great lines at all.  
  • I think Obama did himself a disservice by continuing to claim Romney was pushing for a $5 Trillion tax cut.  He did this three times...each time Romney pulled back the bat and hit the fastball out of the park.  He got to repeat time after time that he wouldn't lower taxes on the rich.  By the third time Obama ignored Romney's explanation, I think he was coming off as a bit of a jerk.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 65
Thread Starter 

SDW: Yeah Obama was not good. He reminded me of GHW Bush in the debates with Clinton: "I'm PRESIDENT, I don't have to put up with this debating crap." I suppose Obama was on autopilot because they feel they are in the lead, and they just have to bide their time. I hope Obama starts losing in the polls and he snaps out of it.

 

And Romney did very well. I liked him - he expressed moderate ideas. He acted like the kind of Republican I could support. But, just like when you marry someone you don't marry just them but their whole family, when you elect a president you don't elect just him but his whole party. And his party is batshit insane right now. 

 

One thing that stood out to me about Romney was the line "if you're on Medicare, my plan won't affect you so you can stop listening."

1. Doesn't that imply that his plan is bad? Why should he have to comfort people by telling them his plan won't affect them?

2. It implies such selfishness. People think not just about their own self-interest, but how policies will affect others. If you think Medicare is great, you're not just thinking "I'm gettin' my check, screw my kids and grandkids!"

post #13 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

One thing that stood out to me about Romney was the line "if you're on Medicare, my plan won't affect you so you can stop listening."

1. Doesn't that imply that his plan is bad? Why should he have to comfort people by telling them his plan won't affect them?

 

Not necessarily. Perhaps because some people are trying to scare the hell out of people currently on medicare. Maybe also because people get concerned when someone proposes changes to something they're already relying on, but people who are not yet can adjust to changes that will not affect them for many years.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

2. It implies such selfishness. People think not just about their own self-interest, but how policies will affect others.

 

Probably not as much as you'd think or like.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 65

That wasn't a debate but stage acting by two corporate sock puppets within a lowest common denominator format with extremely narrow boundaries. Romney came over as more convincing - but considering the dumbed-down format - that was no great achievement. Come November, it will be a "choice" between the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). What kind of "electoral freedom" does the nation have, when the system prevents any candidate with original ideas, or who puts country ahead of party, or independent candidate from taking part unless they have access to $Billions? 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

That wasn't a debate but stage acting by two corporate sock puppets within a lowest common denominator format with extremely narrow boundaries. Romney came over as more convincing - but considering the dumbed-down format - that was no great achievement. Come November, it will be a "choice" between the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). What kind of "electoral freedom" does the nation have, when the system prevents any candidate with original ideas, or who puts country ahead of party, or independent candidate from taking part unless they have access to $Billions? 

 

There is a third candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

He's the only candidate telling the truth about what needs to be done to get this country back on track and, if allowed to have a voice, poses a real threat to the empty suits retaining their power.

 

If Obama, Romney, their campaign machines, and parties agree on excluding Gary Johnson from the debates and ignoring him, that's an indication to me that the game is rigged fromt the start.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #16 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Not necessarily. Perhaps because some people are trying to scare the hell out of people currently on medicare. Maybe also because people get concerned when someone proposes changes to something they're already relying on, but people who are not yet can adjust to changes that will not affect them for many years.

Yes, some people are trying to scare people on medicare. In fact, some people won the house in 2010 with mediscare ads, and some people repeatedly tried that tactic in the debate last night. Meanwhile, other people have actually passed laws that attempt to slow the growth in medical spending.

 

Quote:
Probably not as much as you'd think or like.

Perhaps, but I hope it's less than Romney seems to believe. I guess we already know what he thinks about 47% of the country and how they see things. And what gets me about it is that Romney actually encouraged people to think that way: "You can stop listening now."

post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Perhaps, but I hope it's less than Romney seems to believe. I guess we already know what he thinks about 47% of the country and how they see things. And what gets me about it is that Romney actually encouraged people to think that way: "You can stop listening now."

 

I think your own biases may be flavoring your interpretation of what he meant and intended.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

That wasn't a debate but stage acting by two corporate sock puppets within a lowest common denominator format with extremely narrow boundaries. Romney came over as more convincing - but considering the dumbed-down format - that was no great achievement. Come November, it will be a "choice" between the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). What kind of "electoral freedom" does the nation have, when the system prevents any candidate with original ideas, or who puts country ahead of party, or independent candidate from taking part unless they have access to $Billions? 

 

There is a third candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

He's the only candidate telling the truth about what needs to be done to get this country back on track and, if allowed to have a voice, poses a real threat to the empty suits retaining their power.

 

If Obama, Romney, their campaign machines, and parties agree on excluding Gary Johnson from the debates and ignoring him, that's an indication to me that the game is rigged fromt the start.

 

Jazz, could I ask you for a favor to promote him within a specific thread? California is clearly Obama-country and the electoral votes will be going to Obama regardless of what vote I cast at the top. If there is a way to help promote a third party candidate in terms of funding of ease of ballot access based on this years election, I'd like to know and perhaps find a way to make my vote count in that regard.

 

Our state is so well decided already that I don't think I've seen a single political ad this year. If my vote can't help Romney in terms of becoming president, I might be willing to cast it for a person or party that it would help in terms of qualifying for matching funds or future ballot access. A thread with this info perhaps for third parties in general would be helpful.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Jazz, could I ask you for a favor to promote him within a specific thread? California is clearly Obama-country and the electoral votes will be going to Obama regardless of what vote I cast at the top. If there is a way to help promote a third party candidate in terms of funding of ease of ballot access based on this years election, I'd like to know and perhaps find a way to make my vote count in that regard.

 

Our state is so well decided already that I don't think I've seen a single political ad this year. If my vote can't help Romney in terms of becoming president, I might be willing to cast it for a person or party that it would help in terms of qualifying for matching funds or future ballot access. A thread with this info perhaps for third parties in general would be helpful.

 

There's always this thread: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/137632/is-gary-johnson-the-sanest-man-running-for-president

 

Or I could start another.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #20 of 65
Thread Starter 

I may vote for Gary Johnson or another third-party candidate, unless my state (Montana) gets closer than it seems right now.

post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

This quote, from a supposedly smart man, is a clear example why the left is incapable of managing anything more complicated than a hot dog stand.

 

Any enterprise, government or otherwise, needs to watch its smaller expenditures day-by-day much more than its gigantic ones. Typically, it's the small expenditures and wastage that hinders the ability to do anything truly creative. The larger expenditures are well known, the purchasing methods and pros and cons are well known, and mistakes are less frequent.

 

PBS support may only make up .012% of the budget, but there are probably well over a million agencies, grants, union and corporate welfare programs sucking up an equal amount of the U.S. budget. And suddenly we're talking about a lot of real money.

 

Is it really worth borrowing money from China to finance PBS, BR? Especially since the Internet is about to consume most broadcast TV anyway?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

There is a third candidate who will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

He's the only candidate telling the truth about what needs to be done to get this country back on track and, if allowed to have a voice, poses a real threat to the empty suits retaining their power.

 

If Obama, Romney, their campaign machines, and parties agree on excluding Gary Johnson from the debates and ignoring him, that's an indication to me that the game is rigged fromt the start.


I'm guessing that you are a disgruntled Ron Paul supporter.  Personally, I think that Ron Paul has a bunch of good ideas, but he didn't make it irregardless of how "unfairly" the Republican party may have treated him.  He has great points on needing to dramatically reign in the size and scope of the Federal government.  However, voting for Gary Johnson is only likely to ensure an Obama victory if you're in a swing state.  Now, voting for Gary Johnson if you're in a Democratic stronghold like Ca might actually make some sense.  I view MOST Ron Paul supporters as a spoiled kid on a playground.  Half the kids want to play soccer half want to play kickball, but it's the spoiled kid's ball and he wants to play volleyball so he just takes his ball and goes home.  I don't fault Ron Paul supporters their ideology and their loyalty is admirable, but at this point the board is set and either Romney or Obama is going to be the next President.  If you agree that Obama is doing a good job in a tough situation and just needs more time, then vote for Obama.  If you feel that Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction with government dependency, debt, and a diminished status in the work, then vote for Romney.

 

Romney may very well not be the ideal candidate for most people, but he is the alternative to the current status quo.  Gary Johnson may have great ideas, and he may be the best man for the job out of the three but does anyone really think he has a prayer of getting any more than 3 to 5% of the overall vote?  Does anyone here think he will actually carry a single state?

post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

This quote, from a supposedly smart man, is a clear example why the left is incapable of managing anything more complicated than a hot dog stand.

 

Any enterprise, government or otherwise, needs to watch its smaller expenditures day-by-day much more than its gigantic ones. Typically, it's the small expenditures and wastage that hinders the ability to do anything truly creative. The larger expenditures are well known, the purchasing methods and pros and cons are well known, and mistakes are less frequent.

 

PBS support may only make up .012% of the budget, but there are probably well over a million agencies, grants, union and corporate welfare programs sucking up an equal amount of the U.S. budget. And suddenly we're talking about a lot of real money.

 

Is it really worth borrowing money from China to finance PBS, BR? Especially since the Internet is about to consume most broadcast TV anyway?

 

His PBS example was relevant and topical primarily because of the venue and moderator. As you pointed out, on its own - insignificant, but as an example of a class of cuts - good choice. 

 

 

Quote:
This quote, from a supposedly smart man, is a clear example why the left is incapable of managing anything more complicated than a hot dog stand.

 

Why do so many arguments on this forum have to include token and obviously inaccurate insults?  Do you think that added anything useful to your post?

post #24 of 65

Perhaps the more important point about PBS funding (among many other things) is what business the government has funding such things anyway (regardless of the amount.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 65
Thread Starter 

Tyson's point is perfect, and every serious budget expert - including people like Ryan - would acknowledge it under other circumstances, and have repeatedly in the past. They would also say that there's really only one real problem issue in the budget: Health care.

 

And on that front, Romney attacked Obama for cutting Medicare ("I'm going to give back the $716 billion that Obama cut from medicare"), attacked what is probably the most important cost-control measure in Obamacare ("I won't let an unelected panel tell people what kind of treatment they can get"), and told current seniors he won't touch their benefits ("you can stop listening now"). And then he brings up Big Bird as something he would cut? Opposing health cost control and singling out PBS funding cuts is the very definition of budget charlatanism, and people like Ryan and Bowles and Simpson and anyone who is at all serious about the budget would call it that if someone else said it under different circumstances. 

post #26 of 65

A socialist  vs a RINO  isn't much of a choice.  Rand Paul in 2016!

post #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Tyson's point is perfect, and every serious budget expert - including people like Ryan - would acknowledge it under other circumstances, and have repeatedly in the past. They would also say that there's really only one real problem issue in the budget: Health care.

 

And on that front, Romney attacked Obama for cutting Medicare ("I'm going to give back the $716 billion that Obama cut from medicare"), attacked what is probably the most important cost-control measure in Obamacare ("I won't let an unelected panel tell people what kind of treatment they can get"), and told current seniors he won't touch their benefits ("you can stop listening now"). And then he brings up Big Bird as something he would cut? Opposing health cost control and singling out PBS funding cuts is the very definition of budget charlatanism, and people like Ryan and Bowles and Simpson and anyone who is at all serious about the budget would call it that if someone else said it under different circumstances. 

I believe that Romney's larger point is that revenue is not going to get us out of the mess we're in.  The problem is on the spending side.  Evaluating programs on them being critical enough to the nation at large to justify financing them onto future generations is a perfectly reasonable scale against which to measure them.  He didn't go into it during the debate in specifics, but they touched on it with the Cleavland Clinic references about bringing more competition into healthcare to help bring down costs.  You should ask doctors and therapists and home health agencies if the are being "overpaid" in their Medicare reimbursements and I think you will get a unanimous answer in the negative.  That is the reason to NOT cut hundreds of billions from Medicare. 

 

The best revenue option available is a growing economy coupled with a larger tax base.  More people working at better paying jobs due to robust growth will go MUCH further than a 5% tax hike on the evil rich.  Did you catch Romney's numbers on that top 3% of small businesses that pay under the individual tax rate?  Those top 3% employee something like one quarter of the American workforce.  You think pulling billions of dollars out of that group of people is going to reduce unemployement?  You think those small businesses aren't going to have to make some tough cuts?

 

The Fed takes in a massive amount of our money.  They don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  Personally, I would like to see a 10% across the board cut per year with NO exceptions.  Obviously this is going to be painful, but it would slowly bring the spending down without some kind of completely destructive results on the economy or the military.  Once the Fed gets to a reasonable surplus that can start bringing down the debt, then the cuts can stop.

 

Another way to think about this...  How much more government could we afford if we didn't have to pay half a trillion a year on interest?  Or better yet, how much lower could taxes be?

post #28 of 65

Romney abandoned the ideas he's been running on for the past 18 months in an attempt to score debate points.  I don't know what to believe from this guy.  The mantra forever with Romney has been "lowering taxes on job creators".  Now he's claiming he doesn't want to lower taxes on the rich?  And he's somehow "winning" the debate because of this?  

 

You know how one wins a debate?  Reason & logic.  There was a dearth of it from both candidates, but more so from Romney.  There was the most blatant duplicitousness from him, too.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 65

Oh, look - an Obama supporter complaining about the duplicitousness of another candidate.

 

Oh, look - a pot calling a kettle black.

 

Here is what the debate was really about:

 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #30 of 65

After watching a bit of the debate, I found myself asking, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?"  because he changed his positions again.  But, then I caught myself, because the real Mittens just wants to win and will do anything, say anything, to achieve that end.

 

Where is the plan?

 

Where are the returns?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You know how one wins a debate?  Reason & logic.

 

Sadly, not in politics. Your claim is based on the assumption that the voting public (or even a large percentage of it) is well equipped (and inclined) to apply logic and reason in their decision-making (especially in political matters.)

 

They don't appear to be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Why do so many arguments on this forum have to include token and obviously inaccurate insults?  Do you think that added anything useful to your post?

 

Wasn't really aimed at ALL lefties on the board. lol.gif

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Tyson's point is perfect, and every serious budget expert - including people like Ryan - would acknowledge it under other circumstances, and have repeatedly in the past. They would also say that there's really only one real problem issue in the budget: Health care.

 

Why is it that the Defenders of Sesame Street are always the ones that can't count?

 

That is simply plain wrong. Health Care is not solely responsible for trillion-dollar deficits and a 16-trillion-dollar debt.

Fixing health care does not fix the U.S. deficit and debt issue.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Romney abandoned the ideas he's been running on for the past 18 months in an attempt to score debate points.

 

Your Great Orator raised this idea as well. For some reason, neither you nor he thought it might be prudent - in a debate no less - to use the man's own words against him.

 

Surely if he's been running on those ideas for 18 months it should have been easy to say: "Mr. Romney, when you were campaigning in Ohio last month, you said...."

 

For some reason, Obama neglected to say even once where and when Romney might have espoused those ideas. That's how you lose a debate.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #33 of 65

There is one big factor that makes me, and many people I know (both conservative and liberal) 100% unable to vote for another 4 years of Obama: Two years ago, in controversial parts of the NDAA Act (predictably ignored by the mainstream media) he authorized the kidnapping, indefinite detention without trial, and even assassination of US citizens without evidence, charge or trial - and in my book, that brings him down to the level of a tinpot dictator like Augusto Pinochet or Suharto of Indonesia. Furthermore, his action in signing that law is in 100% violation of his swearing in, under oath the following: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #34 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Why is it that the Defenders of Sesame Street are always the ones that can't count?

 

That is simply plain wrong. Health Care is not solely responsible for trillion-dollar deficits and a 16-trillion-dollar debt.

Fixing health care does not fix the U.S. deficit and debt issue.

If you don't agree that health costs are the only true budget problem that we in the US have, then I'm sorry but you don't understand the US budget. Fixing health care costs does fix the long-term debt, it is the only way to fix the long-term debt, and any plan that doesn't address health costs can't fix the debt. It's why Paul Ryan gets virtually all of his savings from health care, and so does every other serious proposal.

 

But you're defending Romney's "Big Bird" remarks, so I won't expect us to agree on what is a serious proposal.

 

(But the thing about Defenders of Sesame Street can't count was funny, I'll give you that.)

post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If you don't agree that health costs are the only true budget problem that we in the US have, then I'm sorry but you don't understand the US budget. Fixing health care costs does fix the long-term debt, it is the only way to fix the long-term debt, and any plan that doesn't address health costs can't fix the debt. It's why Paul Ryan gets virtually all of his savings from health care, and so does every other serious proposal.

 

You're partly right. Healthcare costs are a specific part of a more general budget problem...overall welfare and entitlements. These are the budget-busters.

 

All that said, the solution to fixing the healthcare costs issue in the government budgets is to get the government out of healthcare entirely not more government intrusion and control in that market. Sadly neither candidate realizes this or proposes it. So we're in for more problems. Problems that will undoubtedly be the basis for more calls for more government control as we slowly wind our way down the road to serfdom.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #36 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

I believe that Romney's larger point is that revenue is not going to get us out of the mess we're in.  The problem is on the spending side.

You can say that the problem is on the spending side as long as you acknowledge that that is an ideological position, not a mathematical one. Spending is up to about 24-25% of GDP when it's historically been closer to 21-22%. Taxes are at about 15% of GDP when they've historically been closer to 18-19%. Mathematically they should be about the same. At what level they both should be, e.g., 15, 20, or 25%, is an ideological question. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have an ideological position on it, just that it is a simple fact that we can either cut spending, raise revenues, or some of both to reduce the deficit.

 

But look, let's assume that we agree that spending should be cut rather than taxes raised. Romney specifically attacked Obama's health care cuts, which is the biggest piece of the budget pie, and cited Big Bird as his spending cuts, which is the smallest. And he's the one who's serious about spending cuts rather than Obama?


Edited by BRussell - 10/4/12 at 4:42pm
post #37 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

All that said, the solution to fixing the healthcare costs issue in the government budgets is to get the government out of healthcare entirely not more government intrusion and control in that market. Sadly neither candidate realizes this or proposes it. So we're in for more problems. Problems that will undoubtedly be the basis for more calls for more government control as we slowly wind our way down the road to serfdom.

If that's true, then why do all the countries with the most socialized medicine spend so much less per capita on health care than us, and why is there no counter-example in the world? I'd just like to see even one example of your theory in action, because there sure are tons of examples of my theory, as in, every other wealthy country in the world.

 

The evidence indicates that socialized medicine is more efficient than private insurance. I know that's inconsistent with some people's ideological positions, but I'd like to hear the evidence; I've sure heard the ideology often enough.

post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW: Yeah Obama was not good. He reminded me of GHW Bush in the debates with Clinton: "I'm PRESIDENT, I don't have to put up with this debating crap." I suppose Obama was on autopilot because they feel they are in the lead, and they just have to bide their time. I hope Obama starts losing in the polls and he snaps out of it.

 

And Romney did very well. I liked him - he expressed moderate ideas. He acted like the kind of Republican I could support. But, just like when you marry someone you don't marry just them but their whole family, when you elect a president you don't elect just him but his whole party. And his party is batshit insane right now. 

 

One thing that stood out to me about Romney was the line "if you're on Medicare, my plan won't affect you so you can stop listening."

1. Doesn't that imply that his plan is bad? Why should he have to comfort people by telling them his plan won't affect them?

2. It implies such selfishness. People think not just about their own self-interest, but how policies will affect others. If you think Medicare is great, you're not just thinking "I'm gettin' my check, screw my kids and grandkids!"

 

1.  I think he came off much, much worse than George Bush 41.  He came off arguably worse than Carter.  I think it was the worst debate performance of an incumbent I've ever seen.  

 

2.  If he's the kind of Republican you could support, I don't see why you won't....support him.  I understand you don't like the Congressional GOP.  But they don't own Romney.  Sounds like time to split your ticket.  I did the same in 2002 when Rendell ran in PA (I regretted that decision, however).  

 

3. I didn't like that Medicare line either.  It came across as a bit dismissive.  I disagree it means his plan is bad and disagree it's selfish.  By the way, Romney and Ryan have specifically stated that they don't think seniors are selfish, which is why they want to get into this discussion about medicare.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Oh, look - an Obama supporter complaining about the duplicitousness of another candidate.

 

Oh, look - a pot calling a kettle black.

 

Here is what the debate was really about:

 

 

You know I disagree with your actual point, but that's pretty damn funny.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You can say that the problem is on the spending side as long as you acknowledge that that is an ideological position, not a mathematical one. Spending is up to about 24-25% of GDP when it's historically been closer to 21-22%. Taxes are at about 15% of GDP when they've historically been closer to 18-19%. Mathematically they should be about the same. At what level they both should be, e.g., 15, 20, or 25%, is an ideological question. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have an ideological position on it, just that it is a simple fact that we can either cut spending, raise revenues, or some of both to reduce the deficit.

 

But look, let's assume that we agree that spending should be cut rather than taxes raised. Romney specifically attacked Obama's health care cuts, which is the biggest piece of the budget pie, and cited Big Bird as his spending cuts, which is the smallest. And he's the one who's serious about spending cuts rather than Obama?

Yeah, but Romney also indicated multiple times that he is going to repeal ObamaCare which I believe as of the most recent reclaculation was approaching $3 trillion.  This would amount to a net reduction of around $2 trillion in cuts under Romney/Ryan.  Of course they have said that they want to replace ObamaCare with something and I'll assume that they spend maybe 50% of those cuts but we should still end up with a significant savings in healthcare under Romney as opposed to Obama.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Romney debated well tonight, but didn't do enough to change the race