Pres Debate: 10/16/2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

My father is as angry about this as I have ever seen him about anything.

.[/quote]

You guys a C-Corp or Scorp/partnership?

You don’t have to answer publicly if you don’t want. But I would suggest, if The One wins, you get as much income into 2012 as you can, assume bonus is gone and the PR tax holiday ends. Obamacare hits your medicare portion on your wages as well, so you want to think about bonusing out any profits in 2012.

If you have any major sales or capital transactions pending or thinking about, get that shit done in 2012 as well.

The republican house can only hold off the WH and Senate for so long, and will bow in tax for something else along the way.

Bottom line, call your acountant if O wins.

262

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

4-Historically the middle debate means less than either the first which is the most important and the third which is the final impression for those who want to decide from debate performances.

.[/quote]

Romney will get his ass handed to him next week if he doesn’t get his foreign policy in order.

Obama is going to say “going back to the Bush policies that got us in 2 unfunded wars” about 286 times in 90 mins. Many, many people are going to agree.

I’m saying, the third debate will be a shit show for Mitt.

His only saving grace is American’s only seem to disapprove killing foreign people when a republican is in office, so they aren’t focused on that right now.

EDIT: fixed who said what[/quote]

I think Romney will do well in the upcoming debate BECAUSE of the way he handled it on Tuesday night, and of course the moderator having Obama’s back. Romney will be lasar focused on the Libya debacle and I believe he’ll play it like a ten stringed harp preventing Obama from slipping away as he did last evening. In an odd way this may play to his favor by not unloading his last shell Tuesday and unleashing it all on Monday night.

He has one focus between now and Monday night and that is foreign affairs. Romney is a smart guy and a hard worker. This is the final debate and the last chance for the voters to see the two men together on the same stage.

The moderator Bob Schieffer is an old school democrat. Naturally, it would be better if there were an independent moderator but apparently the national republican chairman is not quite smart enough to hold out for the proper moderator’s, or even one that favors the republican. With that said I’m not nearly as concerned as I was about Candy Crowley. Schieffer is from an era where he may have favored the democrat be you never made it obvious. I don’t see him playing a role in who wins like Candy Crowley did.

I also think the format will favor Romney as it did in the first debate. Obama shines when there is a crowd, he’s a born actor. Romney, while very good in front of people does not have Obama’s lust for the lime light. But no problem the town hall nonsense is behind us the business man Mitt Romney will get the job done efficiently and appropriately Monday night.

One more point, those expecting to see the Obama of the town hall meeting will be disappointed. And if Romney can put Obama on the defense early regarding Libya it will be a long hellish night for the President.

263

Today’s Gallup has Romney up 51% to Obama’s 45%.

264

[quote]ZEB wrote:
but apparently the national republican chairman is not quite smart enough to hold out for the proper moderator’s, or even one that favors the republican. [/quote]

As to the whole of your post, I hope your right.

Any idea on how the above happens?

I mean is obama simply saying “fine lets not debate then” in responce?

265

Yeah, someone said earlier in the thread that Romney needs to let Benghazi go, now. Absolutely impossible. Romney is in it now with both feet. It is going to be a part of the next debate, and if Romney tucks his tail and tries to duck past it, he will take real damage over it while Obama is vindicated by Romney’s surrender. Nope. It’s all into the pool on this one. He better have this dialed in and focused.

266

There is a LOT of negotiation that goes on with these debates…from format, to moderator to the handling of the questions.

I can almost guarantee that certain people we suggested as moderators, but were SOUNDLY rejected by both sides.

Mufasa

267

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yeah, someone said earlier in the thread that Romney needs to let Benghazi go, now. Absolutely impossible. Romney is in it now with both feet. It is going to be a part of the next debate, and if Romney tucks his tail and tries to duck past it, he will take real damage over it while Obama is vindicated by Romney’s surrender. Nope. It’s all into the pool on this one. He better have this dialed in and focused. [/quote]

Agreed. And I think he needs to talk about it in a broader sense - i.e., the bigger picture is that al-Qaeda is resurgent in places like Libya, and the President isn’t adequately recognizing that fact. The lack of preparedness (failing to provide security in Libya, etc.) is endemic of a bigger, strategic problem - Obama’s complacency and incoherence on the War on Terror 2.0. Obama thought OBL’s death was “game over”, and now we are reacting to events, not being proactive. Etc.

I think Romney will be fine on this. He’ll be prepared.

Also, Romney gets to highlight economic issues as part of national security - i.e., energy independence. He scores points on that.

268

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
Regarding the impact of tax cuts on revenues, this paper gives a pretty good account of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts that - from my understanding - resembles what Romney is proposing.

Individual Taxpayer Response to Tax Cuts 1982-1984 with Implications forthe Revenue Maximizing Tax Rate | NBER - I’m sure there’s a more ‘modern’ pdf somewhere.

Lindsey finds that about one third of the revenue lost through the tax cut was recouped through increased economic activity, which is far from revenue improving. [/quote]

I don’t have time to go through all this, but thanks for at least having something.

I suspect that 2 years after the tax cuts may not be enough, but they were for Bush 43 so, idk.

I don’t see the phrase “one third” used anywhere though, so not sure if I’m missing it or not.[/quote]

Page 26 (in the pdf). At the end of the paragraph that starts with “A comparison…”.

Agreed, two years is a very short time to analyze the effects of tax cuts, but it is still an interesting study. If memory serves me correct Feldstein, Reagan’s economic advisor, did a follow-up in the mid-90s and found similar results. Many of the hardcore “supply-siders” from the Reagan years backed down on their claims of revenue neutral/improving tax cuts over time as the evidence for such tax cuts simply isn’t there.

The study also reports increased growth and employment, which has to be considered as well. [/quote]

This is an interesting post. If you could find any clue as to where the the Feldstein study from the mid 90s is located, I’d be very interested in looking at it. I firmly believe that 2 years is much too short a time-frame to expect to recoup tax revenue lost in a cut, but the economic growth seen from cutting those taxes may be assessed at this time frame. However, if there’s a study done at the 5 or especially 10 year mark–and if that study holds water by accounting for subsequent policy changes from subsequent presidents/admins/congress–then I would really like to read it.

I have a suspicion, although I don’t know if it is provable, that a President needs a minimum of 6-8 years of consistent tax policy with no hikes/changes from Congress or different admins–basically he needs a coherent plan followed all the way through without changing, sort of like newbs change training programs every 3 weeks instead of riding it out for 10–to see if he’s right or wrong in terms of overall economic policy. A subsequent spending increase or tax hike or policy change that goes against the original framework can cut all the ideas short, thus you never get the coherent picture about whether he was right or not.

Just my two cents. Like I said, I can’t prove it, but it seems reasonable given the time frame needed to properly analyze long term effects of tax policy on overall tax revenue (not to be confused with short term effects on boosting or destroying private sector econ growth)

269

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Yeah, someone said earlier in the thread that Romney needs to let Benghazi go, now. Absolutely impossible. Romney is in it now with both feet. It is going to be a part of the next debate, and if Romney tucks his tail and tries to duck past it, he will take real damage over it while Obama is vindicated by Romney’s surrender. Nope. It’s all into the pool on this one. He better have this dialed in and focused. [/quote]

Agreed. And I think he needs to talk about it in a broader sense - i.e., the bigger picture is that al-Qaeda is resurgent in places like Libya, and the President isn’t adequately recognizing that fact. The lack of preparedness (failing to provide security in Libya, etc.) is endemic of a bigger, strategic problem - Obama’s complacency and incoherence on the War on Terror 2.0. Obama thought OBL’s death was “game over”, and now we are reacting to events, not being proactive. Etc.

I think Romney will be fine on this. He’ll be prepared.

Also, Romney gets to highlight economic issues as part of national security - i.e., energy independence. He scores points on that.[/quote]

While younger people on social media are focused on women being uterus having voter stock, they seem to ignore the libya thing.

Maybe you guys are right. I’m pretty sure I was the one that said Mitt just lost all hope there, but even my boss told me this morning that was crazt talk (like you guys).

270

^ I thought he called it a terrorist attack or said something along the lines of terrorists attacked our consulate… Atleast that’s what fox news was pushing because he said one thing and everyone else was saying something else

Edit: Countinbeans that was a response to your response on my first post…just so you know

271

Obama said, “Terrorist attacks will not be tolerated…”

Now, he kept pushing the “it was the video” idea for 2 weeks.

Had it actually been due to the video, Obama would then have said that his “terrorist attacks will not be tolerated” comment would not have been directed towards Libya.

Obama is trying to play both sides on this issue.

272

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
^ I thought he called it a terrorist attack or said something along the lines of terrorists attacked our consulate… Atleast that’s what fox news was pushing because he said one thing and everyone else was saying something else[/quote]

Well

[quote]obama said

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

 As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.[/quote]

I bolded the part that every says is proof of him calling libya an act of terror.

I know if someone killed my men on my watch, I would have been a lot more direct in calling it a terror attack. But then again I’m not running for office and worried that a stain like this hurts my chances for re-election.

Can the case be made he called libya a terror attack? Sure, but this gets close to the “you didn’t build that” context arguement.

FTR, I don’t even give a fuck anymore. I’m convinced they are covering up more than the chance of losing a couple votes over this.

273

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
3. Education subsidies, human capital and economic growth

“They showed that economies with less equitable income distribution raise differential fertility, decelerate human capital accumulation, and lower economic growth; they thereby highlighted the
importance of income redistribution through tax and educational subsidy”

Becker GS (1967) Human Capital and the Personal Distribution of Income.
Woytinski Lecture No. 1. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of
Children. Journal of Political Economy 84(4):S143?S162.

Becker GS, Tomes N (1979) An Equilibrium Theory of the Distribution of Income and
Intergenerational Mobility. Journal of Political Economy 87(6): 1153?1189.

de la Croix D, Doepke M (2003) Inequality and Growth: Why Differential Fertility
Matters. American Economic Review 93(4):1091?1113.

Fender J, Wang P (2003) Educational Policy in a Credit Constrained Economy with
Skill Heterogeneity. International Economic Review 44(3):939?964.

Galor O, Zang H (1997) Fertility, Income Distribution, and Economic Growth: Theory
and Cross-country Evidence. Japan and the World Economy 9(2):197?229.

Glomm G, Ravikumar B (1992) Public vs. Private Investment in Human Capital:
Endogenous Growth and Income Inequality. Journal of Political Economy
100(4):818?834.

Han S, Mulligan CB (2001) Human Capital, Heterogeneity and Estimated Degrees of
Intergenerational Mobility. Economic Journal 111(470):207?43.

Hanushek, EA (1992) The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality. Journal of
Political Economy 100(1):84?117.

Hanushek EA, Leung CKY, Yilmaz K (2003) Redistribution through Education and
Other Transfer Mechanisms. Journal of Monetary Economics 50(8):1719?1750.
H
nushek EA, Leung CKY, Yilmaz K (2004) Borrowing Constraints, College Aid, and
Intergenerational Mobility. NBER Working Paper 10711.

Iyigun MF (1999) Public Education and Intergenerational Economic Mobility.
27

International Economic Review 40(3):697?710.
Kremer M, Chen D (2002) Income-distribution Dynamics with Endogenous Fertility.

Journal of Economic Growth 7(3):227?58.
Maoz YD, Moav O (1999) Intergenerational Mobility and the Process of Development.
The Economic Journal 109(458):677?697.
[/quote]

Going to call BS on this one. I believe you could perhaps have read the 3-5 different studies on the other topics that you posted earlier, and included them as relevant based on your opinion after reading them.

Here, though, you are taking a direct quote from a META-study–which I DON’T see linked clearly attributed with the quote, and quoting a laundry list of studies you obviously HAVE NOT READ OR ANALYZED.

Based on this, I am now more circumspect of your other earlier references, which I originally thought was a great follow-up by you.

I do not expect people to be economists, and I would not expect them to read a million studies on the subject. However I would expect at the very least you to link to the meta-analysis that you got your bibliography and direct quote here from, and explain your opinion on the meta-study itself. That’s what any self-respecting scientist would do–they wouldn’t tacitly and implicitly mis-represent the idea that they had personally read all the studies while quoting–without reference or link–the meta-study their bibliography was plucked from.

So, come clean.

274

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
^ I thought he called it a terrorist attack or said something along the lines of terrorists attacked our consulate… Atleast that’s what fox news was pushing because he said one thing and everyone else was saying something else[/quote]

Well

[quote]obama said

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

 As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.[/quote]

I bolded the part that every says is proof of him calling libya an act of terror.

I know if someone killed my men on my watch, I would have been a lot more direct in calling it a terror attack. But then again I’m not running for office and worried that a stain like this hurts my chances for re-election.

Can the case be made he called libya a terror attack? Sure, but this gets close to the “you didn’t build that” context arguement.

FTR, I don’t even give a fuck anymore. I’m convinced they are covering up more than the chance of losing a couple votes over this.[/quote]

If you had a couple or your men killed on your watch, due to an act of terror, would you go campaigning in Vegas the next day ?

275

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Agreed. And I think he needs to talk about it in a broader sense - i.e., the bigger picture is that al-Qaeda is resurgent in places like Libya, and the President isn’t adequately recognizing that fact. The lack of preparedness (failing to provide security in Libya, etc.) is endemic of a bigger, strategic problem - Obama’s complacency and incoherence on the War on Terror 2.0. Obama thought OBL’s death was “game over”, and now we are reacting to events, not being proactive. Etc.[/quote]

Absolutely. By the way, the controversy about the administration’s talking points, and for how long they were pushed, centers around exactly this.

The hint of impropriety revolves around the question, “Did the administration attempt to push the nature of the attack back, perhaps past the election, because it would be damaging to a to a campaign narrative regarding AQ, related terror groups, and their operational capability.”

And not if Obama feels a nonexistent mob killing an Ambassador is an ‘act of terror,’ or not.

I’ll give Crowley credit for saying that Romney was right on the ‘main.’ We know what he was really trying to get at–terrorists attacking, and how long it took for that to be said. The media that early on called into question the talking points (before Romney did), knows what he was was getting at. The moderator, evidenced by her statement above, knows what he was getting at. Sadly, he walked into a phrase he wouldn’t let go of, when he should have simply stated it clearly from the start. An organized and rather professional attack by terrorist elements, and not a spontaneous mob gone berserk over some you-tube video.

The next debate, do not get bog down in the weeds over this phrase. When Obama happily says “Oh Mr. Romney, speaking of Libya, tell us again how I didn’t say, in the Rose Garden, it was an act of terror” Romney should simply say “You know very well what the issue is, Mr. President. It isn’t over your view that a non-existent mob committed an act of terror. It’s over how long it took, despite early reporting from the media conflicting with your talking points, for you stop pushing this as a unpredictable, spontaneous, mob event. It’s about how long it took for your administration to do an about face, even after the media had seriously called into question statements coming out of you and your people. That is the issue. And remember miss Crowley? You should, you’ve been crowing about her real time fact checking in our last debate. Well, the issue I just outlined above? She says I’m actually right about.”

276

Today’s Gallup has Romney up 51-45.

277

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I really wish Romney would have called out Obama on Solyndra and touched more on why Obama did not sign the Keystone Pipeline if he is such a “North America energy guy.”[/quote]

I was thinking this last night. He never mentioned the pipeline. [/quote]

“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”[/quote]

Let’s ignore the obvious “it will create jobs” argument for a moment.

We can reduce our reliance on foreign oil, or perhaps remove it altogether, and GTFO of the Middle East, and he still caved in to the environmentalists.

I think this issue is not being touched on enough by Romney, Mitty should be in his grill on this.[/quote]

Yes it would be good to see him dwell on it, as it is an environmental nightmare waiting to happen. It just so happens to run through one of the largest aquifers in the west. Couple that with the extremely corrosive nature of bitumen and the number of leaks the builder of the pipeline has had on other pipelines and I think you can see where it’s headed.

I am not saying it shouldn’t be built, only that it warrants further caution.

Enbridge had a spill here two years ago in the Kalamazoo river that they are still trying to clean up and who knows how much actual damage was done to the largest freshwater source in the country.

Lastly, the pipeline in no way ensures energy independence. It is still a free market and the oil companies can sell to whoever is the highest bidder. He is not dwelling on his plan because his plan is no regulation drill wherever the hell you want. People may be pissed at the EPA for overstepping their bounds(myself included) but they still like clean air and water.

Love also that Romney mentioned ethanol. With current methods ethanol is the biggest scam out there.

278

What I don’t get is why the MOD jumped in at all (aside from here party affiliation) on this particular comment. She could have called BS throughout, but only did it in that situation. It just turns people like me, who are already sick of the way shit goes down it D.C.

All the debate did was make me not want to vote, that’s all it accomplished.

279

Edit***** I agree with others that have now said. Romney didn’t mis speak, he was dead nuts on, he got railroaded. I don’t even like Romney, being a Ron Paul Guy, but he caught BO with his dick in his mouth. Obama made the comment that he called it an act of terror the day after. Romney, wasn’t asking him to verify it because he thought he was lying, he wanted him to repeat the statement so that it was clear what the president was saying.

The very next day, he knew it was an act of terror, yet for 2 weeks, he sent out patsy after patsy to the media and played politics by covering it up and saying it was a result of the video. He himself was doing the rounds repeating that lie. One of thier defenses to this was that they only knew it was a terror attack later, when they changed thier tune, but Romney caught him trying to take credit for calling it a terror attack the next day.

For the record, looking at the presidents speech, I don’t think he was trying to say, this was a terror attack, I think he was at that time, saying In general terror attacks will not be stood for and if this was one, those responsible will be hunted down bla bla bla. See he KNEW it was a targeted attack, and put that in the speech so that he could go back and say, see, we always thought it might have been a terror attack, we were just still gathering the data bla bla etc etc.

They knew, he lied about it, and had the audacity to claim the high road when any human can see they actually DID spin that attack and the circumstances around it for political gain. Look at the end of that segment, Romney has just asked about it and both Obama and the Moderator get nervous and jumpy and just steamroll to the next point. Romney appeaps to just throw his hands up as if there is nothing he can do and walks back to his chair.

V

280

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Today’s Gallup has Romney up 51-45.[/quote]

Aye. There’s a threat of a Romney break away. Obama is in real danger of being the victim of a late in the game bandwagon which isn’t going his way. The question is, does last night’s debate play a factor? I just don’t think so. I don’t think Obama ran away with as his supporters like to think.

The snap shot polls showed a reasonably tight judgment. Sure, they favored Obama on the main, who won the debate. But it wasn’t even remotely a butt-kicking, going by those snap polls. And that’s with a major Romney fumble. And on the issues, while Romney might have come up short on the main, he did damn well according to the same polls.

The question is, how accurately will the snap polls reflect the public at large. If they do, I think Obama is in serious trouble. He needed to not only win a debate more decisively, but he really needed to win the issues. We shall see.