or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Debates: Three President/One VP - Page 6

post #201 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

We could always bring back the threat warning levels... green orange yellow red or whatever that fun thing was that was manipulated regularly.

 

That was all about keeping the population in FEAR. A fearful, or terrorized, population, is the most easily manipulated. ALL of the so-called "terror warnings" that the (US) government have put out in the last 11 years since 9/11 have been faked, fabricated or manufactured, and to terrorize a population in the wake of something drastic (9/11), they don't even need to cause death and destruction - they just need to keep reminding the public about it. With a complicit and cowardly, unquestioning, lapdog knee-padded Goebbels-like corporate media at their beck and call, this type of subtle terrorism can maintain the public's fear and confusion. Governments of all political stripes - left, right and center are abundantly aware of this political ace card, and when its useful/politically expedient, they will resort to fabricated, fictitious fairytales of FEAR to terrorize the people, in order to "justify" their agendæ.

"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 #202 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

We could always bring back the threat warning levels... green orange yellow red or whatever that fun thing was that was manipulated regularly.

 

That was all about keeping the population in FEAR. A fearful, or terrorized, population, is the most easily manipulated. ALL of the so-called "terror warnings" that the (US) government have put out in the last 11 years since 9/11 have been faked, fabricated or manufactured, and to terrorize a population in the wake of something drastic (9/11), they don't even need to cause death and destruction - they just need to keep reminding the public about it. With a complicit and cowardly, unquestioning, lapdog knee-padded Goebbels-like corporate media at their beck and call, this type of subtle terrorism can maintain the public's fear and confusion. Governments of all political stripes - left, right and center are abundantly aware of this political ace card, and when its useful/politically expedient, they will resort to fabricated, fictitious fairytales of FEAR to terrorize the people, in order to "justify" their agendæ.

 

While paranoid, your theory might have some merit if the system had actually seen much use. As it is there were very few elevated threat levels implemented under the old system, and none since moving to NTAS as far as I'm aware. If their goal is to keep the public afraid then they are doing a very poor job, and they really ought to stop telling everyone how good our homeland security is.

 

But they are watching you - you know that don't you? Every move...

post #203 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

While paranoid, your theory might have some merit if the system had actually seen much use. As it is there were very few elevated threat levels implemented under the old system, and none since moving to NTAS as far as I'm aware. If their goal is to keep the public afraid then they are doing a very poor job, and they really ought to stop telling everyone how good our homeland security is.

 

But they are watching you - you know that don't you? Every move...

 

 

My impression was that it was under Bush that the level went up a few times, but I live on the other side of the planet and wasn't watching it daily.

 

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 #204 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

While paranoid, your theory might have some merit if the system had actually seen much use. As it is there were very few elevated threat levels implemented under the old system, and none since moving to NTAS as far as I'm aware. If their goal is to keep the public afraid then they are doing a very poor job, and they really ought to stop telling everyone how good our homeland security is.

 

But they are watching you - you know that don't you? Every move...

Not "paranoid", Muppetry. If I was "paranoid", I wouldn't make 90% of the posts I make here. While the broadcast "threat level" remained for the most part on "orange" - one stage below the maximum "red" -  it was both the specific and general/nonspecific threats and warnings that were broadcast on an almost weekly basis by the DHS and their media lackeys that did the work. NONE of these threats ever materialized, yet served very effectively in tightening the nerves, or effectively terrorizing, the general public. Not just terrorizing but effectively making the public "shut up".... as "jackbootlicking" Bill O'Reilly loves to yell at dissenting interviewees on his Fox News show.

"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 #205 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

While paranoid, your theory might have some merit if the system had actually seen much use. As it is there were very few elevated threat levels implemented under the old system, and none since moving to NTAS as far as I'm aware. If their goal is to keep the public afraid then they are doing a very poor job, and they really ought to stop telling everyone how good our homeland security is.

 

But they are watching you - you know that don't you? Every move...

Not "paranoid", Muppetry. If I was "paranoid", I wouldn't make 90% of the posts I make here. While the broadcast "threat level" remained for the most part on "orange" - one stage below the maximum "red" -  it was both the specific and general/nonspecific threats and warnings that were broadcast on an almost weekly basis by the DHS and their media lackeys that did the work. NONE of these threats ever materialized, yet served very effectively in tightening the nerves, or effectively terrorizing, the general public. Not just terrorizing but effectively making the public "shut up".... as "jackbootlicking" Bill O'Reilly loves to yell at dissenting interviewees on his Fox News show.

 

Then I'm happy to hear that you feel safe and secure and that, being far smarter, obviously, than the general public, you haven't been fooled by all those silly terrorists and their threats to make America pay for its sins.

post #206 of 239

 

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 #207 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-critics-of-obamas-libya-response-profoundly-misunderstand-intelligence/263139/

 

Interesting take on Libya.  From a former CIA guy.

 

What a joke.  Republican or Democrat, it doesn't take a genius to understand the administration knew the attack was pre-planned and not related to the video when they repeatedly and directly claimed otherwise.  That is the issue that matters.  Intelligence failures, intelligence vagueness, or even mistakes are understandable.  Lying is not.  And we have proof of lying.  

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 #208 of 239

Tonight's debate should be interesting.

 

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 #209 of 239

I suspect that tonight's debate will decide the election.

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 #210 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Tonight's debate should be interesting.

 

 

 

And what's Obama's plan?  You know, the guy that's...President?

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 #211 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

And what's Obama's plan?  You know, the guy that's...President?

 

"Iran, if you have nukes, you didn't build that."

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 #212 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

"Iran, if you have nukes, you didn't build that."

lol.gif Good one!

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #213 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Tonight's debate should be interesting.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jY7ZkRqb4

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #214 of 239

Um, why is the Canadian the first to post about the U.S. debate?

 

My thoughts: Obama scored a number of attack points, but Romney's whole game plan was to assure no eagerness for another war, and promise to keep Dick Cheney and the Neocons at arms length.

 

He did that in spades, and looked like (as CNN said) "safe change". Romney attempted to play chess while Obama argued over checkers. Will it work with undecideds?

 

Aside from that, Mexico should lodge a protest that nobody cared that a massive drug war is taking place (and Romney failed to mention the Obama admin's complicity in that regard.) Baffling that nobody bothered to even mention it. Are none of the states in play affected by Central and South America at all?

 

Also, "we can't kill our way out of this mess" seems like a line that will resound with the American middle class.

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 #215 of 239
Who is that guy and what did he do with primaries Romney? The wingers went nuts with the Kerry "flip-flopping", but with Romney? Crickets.

 

“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 #216 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Who is that guy and what did he do with primaries Romney? The wingers went nuts with the Kerry "flip-flopping", but with Romney? Crickets.

 

 

ROMNEY ENDORSES OBAMA

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-debate-20121023,0,2131672.story

 

 

Hahahahahaha!

 

 

What is Mittens' real opinion on anything?

 

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 #217 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

"If Romney believes in a thoughtful and centrist foreign policy, which he hadn't until Monday night, it would argue for his candidacy. But if that vision is attractive — and it is — why not stick with the president who is already pursuing it?"

 

This last line in the article is the most important. The answer is, the economy.

 

It's stupid for the left to point out the policy agreements - that's what Romney was likely going for.

The more the left plays up the "endorsement" of Obama's foreign policy, the more likely the election will be solely decided on economics.

 

That's where the GOP wants it. Didn't Bill Clinton teach this lesson already?

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 #218 of 239

The economy is the main issue, the last debate wasn't that important, and I found it kind of boring to be honest. Romney came off as more presidential than the petty Obama. Obama came off as a small man with no plans and a horrible record which he can't defend. Romney was obviously playing it smooth tonight, and he didn't want to be too aggressive, since he's been doing well in many polls recently. Obama can attack Romney all he likes, but Romney hasn't been the President for the last four years. Obama's tragic record speaks for itself and Obama's behavior was kind of desperate, since his campaign has been imploding these past few weeks.

 

I do hope that Romney wins of course, since I'd like to see Obama gone, he's done a miserable job.

 

Having said that though, I'm ok with either outcome. If Romney wins, I'm happy because of the already mentioned reasons, and I believe that Romney is way smarter than Obama. Romney has economic smarts, Obama basically has nothing, besides his disastrous record. Virtually anybody is better than Obama, and he's had his shot, and now he should be kicked to the curb, since he's failed. Give Romney a shot, and if people are not happy in four years, then kick him to the curb too.

 

If Obama were to win, then I'm not going to cheer, but I'll be ok with it, because the next four years will be even worse for a great many Americans, mostly Obama supporters, IMO. Their misery and deteriorating situation would at least give me some consolation. I would never hire an Obama supporter, if I ran a business that was looking to hire people.


Edited by Apple ][ - 10/23/12 at 1:13am
post #219 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

This last line in the article is the most important. The answer is, the economy.

 

It's stupid for the left to point out the policy agreements - that's what Romney was likely going for.

The more the left plays up the "endorsement" of Obama's foreign policy, the more likely the election will be solely decided on economics.

 

That's where the GOP wants it. Didn't Bill Clinton teach this lesson already?

Yup.  The economy has improved under Obama.  Mittens wants to take us back to the Bush years.  Oh, and there's this...

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

 

 

 

Quote:
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout 
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. 
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; 
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until 
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income 
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War. 
 
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate 
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in 
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The 
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. 
 
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of 
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income 
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before 
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the 
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to 
how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income 
disparities.

 

Thank you nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.  Time to take these old, terrible ideas of supply-side bullshit-o-nomics and put them out of their misery.  So, vote Romney if you want policies that lead to greater income disparity with no correlation to economic growth.  

 

“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 #220 of 239

You should know about lying Romney and Ryan are the biggest ones in this whole campaign. Everyday is a flip flop for Romney. Who knows who this man really is ?
 

post #221 of 239
Thread Starter 

I found it most interesting that the "zinger" that people thought Obama got off is rather interesting. We used to have more horses and bayonets and that is the same thing as a.......ship.

 

Really? Yes we all understand that what the Navy is requesting is a bunch of wood and wind driven ships and we don't need as many of them, even though they are requesting a certain number, because we have metal.....or something like that. The logic isn't very clear there.

 

Technology certainly can change the nature of what we request or need but a ship is pretty fundamental and nothing about technology changes that. What's next, we used to have more horses so we don't need... bullets? We used to have more horses so now we don't need, personnel? We used to have more horses so now we don't need...uniforms?

 

Why would someone jump on or endorse a "zinger" that doesn't even have good reasoning?

"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 #222 of 239
Watching 3rd one now. This is bad. Very bad for Obama. Waffling, attacking Romney, co-opting Romney's statements, arrogant... Not cool. Not good.

In what world is now the Republican candidate making the most sense?

I mean, however true his intentions, Romney is totally nailing it.

Very sad to see the Left taking it up the shaft like this. Not cool.

Obama - "Ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future"

...When people are getting slaughtered, I think they really do want to determine their future but it's a bit hard when babies are getting shot and stuff... Pretty insensitive.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/23/12 at 5:05am
post #223 of 239

Mittens knows nothing about our military, and hasn't learned anything since January, it would seem, when he mentioned the size of the navy in 11917 and the Air Force in 1947.

 

It is not just in the numbers, but the capabilities, as Obama clearly informed the student.

 

In January, Mittens' comments received a Pants on fire rating:

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

 

I know, I know, his campaign did say quite clearly that they wouldn't let fact checkers dictate to them.

 

- - - - -

 

Obama did a great job, I think, reminding people regularly of how Mittens was shifting his position.  Today Mittens was trying to get the undecideds by moving to the center.  He may have sounded good tonight in some respects, but if we look back at his statements over the past few months, he is in fact quite scary.  Indeed, most of his foreign affairs advisors hail from the staff of George W. Bush.  Remember, people, he said himself he needed 50.1% of the vote, and he will do anything, say anything to get there.  Shape-shifter.

 

 

- - - - -

 

You sank my battleship!


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/23/12 at 4:57am

 

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 #224 of 239
I don't like the condescending look Obama's giving Romney this third round. The "Left" doesn't operate this way. At least not that I know of.
post #225 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/153124/the-debates-three-president-one-vp/200#post_2216894"]The economy is the main issue, the last debate wasn't that important, and I found it kind of boring to be honest. Romney came off as more presidential than the petty Obama. Obama came off as a small man with no plans and a horrible record which he can't defend. Romney was obviously playing it smooth tonight, and he didn't want to be too aggressive, since he's been doing well in many polls recently. Obama can attack Romney all he likes, but Romney hasn't been the President for the last four years. Obama's tragic record speaks for itself and Obama's behavior was kind of desperate, since his campaign has been imploding these past few weeks...

Bingo. Any reasonable person would have seen the above. Obama's off... And that's scarier to me than Romney being "on".

Obama's naval comments... Wow, now he's just being a total jackass.

...Sucking up to Israel... *sigh*

There comes a time in a man's life when your intelligence and overconfidence will do you in. Obama looks to be on that path.

Even Romney is looking at him like, Wow.. WTF is happening with you?

Amazing answer on Iran by Romney. Man... however accurate or true his comments, this might be divine inspiration.

Obama... self-destructing again.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/23/12 at 5:20am
post #226 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Tonight's debate should be interesting.


C'mon in the debates Obama is the one that has just been waffling on and on and on... I'm trying to listen and he's really not making much sense. Weasel words, waffling, not admitting rights or wrongs.
post #227 of 239
Thread Starter 

The pettiness of the Obama campaign has transferred down to his supporters. Look how strange and petty the complaints have been in the threads here. Same bumper-sticker thinking and same attempt at sarcasm, caricature and snark rather than leadership.

 

Millions are unemployed and underemployed. Growth was never strong for the recovery and is weakening each month. The president has borrowed TRILLIONS has no intention of changing his path.

 

That isn't important though, what is important...BINDERS.....that isn't important, what is important.....BATTLESHIP.

 

It's really, just so sad that people are suffering and Obama sounds like a weak Jon Stewart.

"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 #228 of 239
"You skipped Israel"... Obama's response ~ "I went to the Holocaust Museum to reflect on the nature of evil" ...
WTF?
post #229 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The pettiness of the Obama campaign has transferred down to his supporters. Look how strange and petty the complaints have been in the threads here. Same bumper-sticker thinking and same attempt at sarcasm, caricature and snark rather than leadership.

Millions are unemployed and underemployed. Growth was never strong for the recovery and is weakening each month. The president has borrowed TRILLIONS has no intention of changing his path.

That isn't important though, what is important...BINDERS.....that isn't important, what is important.....BATTLESHIP.

It's really, just so sad that people are suffering and Obama sounds like a weak Jon Stewart.

As much as I love to fight for causes, there comes a time when you look at something objectively and it becomes obvious Obama is not doing the right thing. To me, and to many people.

As the "Left" we have an honour to be "the better man/woman". Obama? No, no.

Weasel words, attacking Romney with random nonsense...

WOW. Obama is really losing it towards the end of this third debate. He seems really down for the count. Wow. What's happening.

It's quite disturbing actually.

"After I killed Bin Laden I was at Ground Zero"... And this is relevant to Israel bombers how?

I'm listening to Obama and I really have no idea what he is talking about. Five minutes of just random rubbish.

Pakistan... Good point by Romney. Feels "fatherly" (for better or worse) while Obama comes off as ...I dunno... Obama... "Bridges, schools"? What does this have to do with Afghanistan?

Obama may be "on point" but is totally not relevant to the questions.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Wow. This is bad.

Even the moderator kind of gave up a bit.
Edited by sr2012 - 10/23/12 at 5:39am
post #230 of 239
I'm sorry to make so many serial posts, you all know I'm in a totally opposite time zone.

But Romney's answer about China.

My jaw is on the floor.

I have honestly not seen anyone else in the West actually say it like this straight up without politically-correct BS.

As a spiritual but not religious person... This is divine inspiration, no two ways about it. Something is happening.

At the end I think I see pity, in Romney's eyes.

Weird.
post #231 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yup.  The economy has improved under Obama.  Mittens wants to take us back to the Bush years.  Oh, and there's this...

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

 

 

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout 
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. 
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; 
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until 
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income 
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War. 
 
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate 
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in 
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The 
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. 
 
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of 
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income 
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before 
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the 
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to 
how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income 
disparities.

 

Thank you nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.  Time to take these old, terrible ideas of supply-side bullshit-o-nomics and put them out of their misery.  So, vote Romney if you want policies that lead to greater income disparity with no correlation to economic growth.  

 

Well, I don't know the historical data from almost 3/4 of a century ago, but how about the fact that the top 1% makes 17% of the income.  That does seem quite unfair, doesn't it?  How is it that the top 1% makes so much money?  I think Obama is correct and we should make sure that the rich pay their fair share.  The top 1% only pays 37% of all Federal income tax!!!  How dare they!!!  Proportionally the top 1% is paying only slightly more than double their "fair share".  Oh wait, let me think this thru...

 

So if Obama is right in that the rich need to pay their "fair share", does that mean that he intends to cut their tax rate by about 50%?  If they make 17% of the income in America, wouldn't their "fair share" to be to pay 17% of the income tax?

 

Just how much do you propose that we soak the rich?  You are aware that NOBODY has ever paid anything even close to the 90% top marginal rate aren't you?  Back in the day, apparently your glory days of 70 to 90% top marginal rates, many of the evil rich simply stopped working when they got to that top marginal tax rate.  Additionally, their were so many loopholes and deductions that even those who made well into that top rate never paid anything close to that rate.  Where is the incentive to work when you are only going to get 10 to 30% of your compensation for that work?

post #232 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Watching 3rd one now. This is bad. Very bad for Obama. Waffling, attacking Romney, co-opting Romney's statements, arrogant... Not cool. Not good.
In what world is now the Republican candidate making the most sense?
I mean, however true his intentions, Romney is totally nailing it.
Very sad to see the Left taking it up the shaft like this. Not cool.
Obama - "Ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future"
...When people are getting slaughtered, I think they really do want to determine their future but it's a bit hard when babies are getting shot and stuff... Pretty insensitive.

 

At the outset I felt Obama was winning. Obama looked and sounded confident and aggressive for about 30 minutes, whereas Romney was being fairly passive.  However, after Mitt's Afghanistan answer (which I didn't like), the debate turned completely.  Obama started looking angry, petulant, condescending and snarky.  He was off his game, and Mitt started getting more direct.  Romney was Presidential.  Obama came off like a desperate challenger.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens knows nothing about our military, and hasn't learned anything since January, it would seem, when he mentioned the size of the navy in 11917 and the Air Force in 1947.

 

It is not just in the numbers, but the capabilities, as Obama clearly informed the student.

 

In January, Mittens' comments received a Pants on fire rating:

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-us-navy-smallest-1917-air-force-s/

 

I know, I know, his campaign did say quite clearly that they wouldn't let fact checkers dictate to them.

 

 

 

That link really doesn't help your case.  It shows that on balance, Romney was correct, especially about the Air Force.   The article also launches into some opining on why the size of the force is not a good metric.  That's a perfectly legitimate debate to have, but it's hardly "fact checking."   

 

 

 

- - - - -

 

Obama did a great job, I think, reminding people regularly of how Mittens was shifting his position.  Today Mittens was trying to get the undecideds by moving to the center.  He may have sounded good tonight in some respects, but if we look back at his statements over the past few months, he is in fact quite scary.  Indeed, most of his foreign affairs advisors hail from the staff of George W. Bush.  Remember, people, he said himself he needed 50.1% of the vote, and he will do anything, say anything to get there.  Shape-shifter.

- - - - -

 

You sank my battleship!

 

 

1.  Yes, yes, Berg.  We know that's all you and your man have left:  Paint Romney as "reckless and radical," a war monger, etc.  The problem you have here is no one really believes it's true.  This is particularly so because of Romney's calm and pleasant demeanor, speaking style and overall tone.   

 

2.  That was a funny line by Obama.  As with the others however, it was also very un-presidential.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The pettiness of the Obama campaign has transferred down to his supporters. Look how strange and petty the complaints have been in the threads here. Same bumper-sticker thinking and same attempt at sarcasm, caricature and snark rather than leadership.

 

Millions are unemployed and underemployed. Growth was never strong for the recovery and is weakening each month. The president has borrowed TRILLIONS has no intention of changing his path.

 

That isn't important though, what is important...BINDERS.....that isn't important, what is important.....BATTLESHIP.

 

It's really, just so sad that people are suffering and Obama sounds like a weak Jon Stewart.


Yep.  At first I thought Obama was winning the debate because Mitt wasn't hitting him hard enough.  But Obama perhaps got overconfident, because he started coming across as petty, angry and ridiculous.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

Well, I don't know the historical data from almost 3/4 of a century ago, but how about the fact that the top 1% makes 17% of the income.  That does seem quite unfair, doesn't it?  How is it that the top 1% makes so much money?  I think Obama is correct and we should make sure that the rich pay their fair share.  The top 1% only pays 37% of all Federal income tax!!!  How dare they!!!  Proportionally the top 1% is paying only slightly more than double their "fair share".  Oh wait, let me think this thru...

 

So if Obama is right in that the rich need to pay their "fair share", does that mean that he intends to cut their tax rate by about 50%?  If they make 17% of the income in America, wouldn't their "fair share" to be to pay 17% of the income tax?

 

Just how much do you propose that we soak the rich?  You are aware that NOBODY has ever paid anything even close to the 90% top marginal rate aren't you?  Back in the day, apparently your glory days of 70 to 90% top marginal rates, many of the evil rich simply stopped working when they got to that top marginal tax rate.  Additionally, their were so many loopholes and deductions that even those who made well into that top rate never paid anything close to that rate.  Where is the incentive to work when you are only going to get 10 to 30% of your compensation for that work?

 

He won't listen.  BR is convinced the rich don't pay enough and that by raising their taxes, you not only make things More Fair(TM) but you decrease the deficit was well,.  Neither is true, but that won't stop him.  

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 #233 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
He won't listen.  BR is convinced the rich don't pay enough and that by raising their taxes, you not only make things More Fair(TM) but you decrease the deficit was well,.  Neither is true, but that won't stop him.  

 

The funny thing here is I was doing a little research and reading on the beloved and model Clinton era.  How wonderful everything was under the Clinton tax rates.  How they balanced the budget and everything was just a bed of roses for everyone everywhere...

 

One interesting note on that is the fact that things really didn't start to boom until his second term.  I believe this was after like 3 years of his magical tax increases on the rich.  It was definitely after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate.  It was also after a few things that seem to have made a more significant difference such as welfare reform and the cap gains tax rate being taken from 28 to 20%.  In Clinton's first term real hourly wages went from $7.41 to $7.43, but in his second term they went from $7.43 to $7.89.  Looks to me like Clinton should be thinking the Republicans for pulling him back from the edge.  Obama has ignored the Republicans and is running flat out for the cliff, and it's looking more and more likely that his radical agenda is going to cost him the election.  Thank God.

post #234 of 239

So, my reaction to the debate:  

 

Outcome:  As debates go, it was basically a draw on policy.  Of course, this had a lot to do with Libya barely being mentioned (which I thought was outrageous).  On style, I thought Obama started well, but ended up looking terrible by the end.  He was angry, condescending and rude.  He looked like the challenger.  Romney was calm, in command of the facts and pleasant. He was Presidential, even when I didn't like his answers.  Obama was not.  In that sense it's a big win for Romney.  He needed to be a plausible Commander-in-Chief, and he clearly did that regardless of who you think "won."  Obama needed a knockout, which he didn't get.   

 

Points:  

  • Romney won on:  Israeli relations, Obama's Apology Tour, how the economy affects foreign policy, China.  
  • Obama won on:  Size of military, Iran, Afghanistan troop levels.  

 

Gaffes:  

  • Bob Schieffer saying "Obama's bin Laden"
  • Obama saying sequestration "will not happen."  The WH actually had to walk this back right after the debate.  

 

Best Lines

  • Romney:  "You skipped Israel, by the way.  They noticed."   
  • Romney:  "The reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and said on Arabic TV that America had been dismissive, even derisive.  You said we dictated to other nations.  America does not dictate to other nations.  We free nations from dictators.  
  • Obama:  [We're not going to] play a game of sink my battleship"  
  • Obama:  The reason we have fewer ships is because our capabilities have changed.  We also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did in 1917.   

 

Closing statements:  

 

  • I think Romney clearly won the closing statements by looking directly into the camera, tying things back to the economy and asking for the vote.  He came off as warm and sincere, not to mention in command of the facts.   
  • Obama's statement was not as good.  He described Romney's policies as "reckless and radical" and if I recall, mentioned raising taxes.  It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't good.  

 

 

After sleeping on it:  

 

  • As I said, for half the debate I was wondering what Romney was doing.  He was being passive and letting President just hammer away.  Obama had the right balance of attacking Romney and presenting his own ideas.  But all that changed at half time.  Suddenly Obama looked irritated, moving about in his chair and overusing his hands.  His attacks grew personal (investments in China, "you're all over the map," etc).  He appeared petulant, even angry at times. He was condescending, rude and interruptive.  Romney maintained his composure and hit back effectively.  
  • Romney didn't lose any votes, and probably gained some moderates who are war weary.   Obama had a good debate for his base, but likely didn't convince any independents.  
  • With respect to the above, the Luntz focus group said Obama won the debate and thought he was better on foreign policy.  But what was most interesting was that nearly all of them said that foreign policy was a distant second to the economy, and trusted Romney on that issue much more than Obama.   
  • Romney's strategy was clearly to be Presidential and Do No Harm.  In this respect he succeeded.  However, it was more than that.  It finally occurred to me what Mitt's strategy for these debates was:  First debate? Deal Obama a blow so severe that could not recover.  Second debate? Media will probably call it for Obama anyway, so stick to Obama's record, your plans, and demonstrate compassion and knowledge.  Third debate:  Be Presidential...win by looking and acting like a President who has command of the facts.  Don't worry about answering every attack or "winning."  Avoid major gaffes.   
  • I expect the Romney momentum to continue on pace.  There was nothing about this debate that changed the dynamic of the race.  

Edited by SDW2001 - 10/25/12 at 3:51pm
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 #235 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

Well, I don't know the historical data from almost 3/4 of a century ago, but how about the fact that the top 1% makes 17% of the income.  That does seem quite unfair, doesn't it?  How is it that the top 1% makes so much money?  I think Obama is correct and we should make sure that the rich pay their fair share.  The top 1% only pays 37% of all Federal income tax!!!  How dare they!!!  Proportionally the top 1% is paying only slightly more than double their "fair share".  Oh wait, let me think this thru...

 

So if Obama is right in that the rich need to pay their "fair share", does that mean that he intends to cut their tax rate by about 50%?  If they make 17% of the income in America, wouldn't their "fair share" to be to pay 17% of the income tax?

 

Just how much do you propose that we soak the rich?  You are aware that NOBODY has ever paid anything even close to the 90% top marginal rate aren't you?  Back in the day, apparently your glory days of 70 to 90% top marginal rates, many of the evil rich simply stopped working when they got to that top marginal tax rate.  Additionally, their were so many loopholes and deductions that even those who made well into that top rate never paid anything close to that rate.  Where is the incentive to work when you are only going to get 10 to 30% of your compensation for that work?

 

Did you really mean this, or were you being ironic? Because you appear to have accidentally conflated tax rates with tax revenue. Your analysis also yields the observation that the top 50% are paying 100% of Federal income tax. Catastrophically unfair; everyone is paying five times their fair share.

post #236 of 239

Nice debate analysis.  One area I think you are giving Romney too much credit in was the first debate strategy of "Deal Obama a blow so severe that could not recover."  Romney was really good in the first debate, but the fact that Obama was SO bad is what turned the debate from a win to a "severe" beating.  I think it's like a team in the playoffs.  If you pound out a fantastic first half, you can play a little more cautious and conservative in the second half so as not to risk injury.

 

Overall, I think the debates were great, and I honestly think that the Obama administration set themselves up for exactly what happened.  The administration painted Romney so incredibly negatively that there was really no way for him to live down to that image.  For Obama being so brilliant, it was a really dumb strategy to go so negative when all Romney had to do to negate the entire ad campaign was to not walk onto the debate stage with horns and a pitchfork breathing fire.

 

Obama said it back in 2008 though...  If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from.

 

Unfortunately for Obama though, when your opponent doesn't come across as the demon you are setting him up to be his 2008 logic is dead on.

post #237 of 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

The funny thing here is I was doing a little research and reading on the beloved and model Clinton era.  How wonderful everything was under the Clinton tax rates.  How they balanced the budget and everything was just a bed of roses for everyone everywhere...

 

One interesting note on that is the fact that things really didn't start to boom until his second term.  I believe this was after like 3 years of his magical tax increases on the rich.  It was definitely after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate.  It was also after a few things that seem to have made a more significant difference such as welfare reform and the cap gains tax rate being taken from 28 to 20%.  In Clinton's first term real hourly wages went from $7.41 to $7.43, but in his second term they went from $7.43 to $7.89.  Looks to me like Clinton should be thinking the Republicans for pulling him back from the edge.  Obama has ignored the Republicans and is running flat out for the cliff, and it's looking more and more likely that his radical agenda is going to cost him the election.  Thank God.

 

Correct on the tax rates and revenue.  But let's go further.  The 90s were anemic until late 1995.  Clinton's massive tax increase (which hit the middle class too) was deeply unpopular, as was his attempt to institute universal healthcare.  Dick Morris said that in 1995 they were down 30 points in the polls.   In 1996, the economy started picking up steam as the tech boom got underway.  By the election, it was in full swing, leaving Clinton to face a weak Republican challenger in Bob Dole.  From late 1996-late 1999, the economy boomed from the tech bubble and associated industries.  So point one is that the Clinton economy was not all coming up roses.  It was weak during most of his first term.   

 

The second (and more important point) is that the Clinton tax rates did not cause or facilitate growth.  The Obamatrons are confusing correlation with causation here.  The fact is that the economy boomed despite these rates, not because of them.  We had enough economic growth from the tech boom/bubble that we could withstand those rates.  Not so today.  Tax increases will further slow economic growth, a fact confirmed by the CBO and other non-partisan organizations.   

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 #238 of 239
I don't think Romney was "passive". He was trying to be sensible and stick to common-sense points, rather than prattling on all sorts of irrelevant stuff.

For the common man, to me, Romney was just making sense. Obama seemed to be tying himself in knots, despite his previous oratory brilliance.

PS. Watching VP debate now. Wow, Ryan also is making sense, while Biden comes of as an annoying cranky old grandpa.
post #239 of 239
The main issue is that the US Democrats will not accept that the UN is now an absolute failure.

This is the challenge of the Left, and why some of the Left are refusing to admit it, as I did until recently.

We can tolerate almost everything except the tolerance of intolerance. When you tolerate intolerance, eventually there is no tolerance at all. This is the challenge 2012-2025 for all humanity. Time to see things as they are, clearly.

The UN is now an absolute cesspool of tolerating the intolerant psychopaths like Ahmeninejad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Debates: Three President/One VP