Presidential Debate (Page 10)

I've been thinking about it and I think Romney won because he has no real specifics for Obama to attack. Obama says your plan has no coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and Romney says yes it does. But he doesn't have a plan. He said he'd repeal obamacare. Then he said he'd keep the pre-existing condition part. Then he said you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions if you've had continuous coverage. What exactly is Obama supposed to argue against in that?

If you think about it, it's actually a good debate strategy. He sounds like he has all of the answers and Obama has no details to really attack. He's going to have to start resorting to 47% comments and Cayman Islands stuff.

I agree it's a two way street.  It's like two kids pouting on opposite sides of the room.  At some point though somebody has to be a grown up and take charge.  Obama's idea of bipartisanship on the healthcare reform was to hold a summit and invite the republicans in for an ambush.  Then complain that the Republican's won't work with him.  That's not leadership, that's partisanship.

But Josh... how is that different from Obama that does the same thing? They throw out "goals", but give no nuts and bolts on how. Just yesterday... Obama came out with a new commercial. At least it was new to me... he rolled out his "5 point plan"... one was he was going to create a million(?) new manufacturing jobs to put skilled workers back to work.... OK, HOW??? And if that is what you ARE going to do... then why have you not DONE that. I mean he just says it like a stroke of a pen will just ge done... then why have you not done it???

So he rolled out his 5 point plan that gave no more specifics than Romney has done... and you know full well all those "goal" are targets based on assumptions and juked numbers and specifics don't actually mean anything based on sand. So you can say you want more spcifics on how the smoke is actually generated... but what is the point?

Overall, Obama has the weakest of all positions because his words have to be rooted in some sort of reality... he is the sitting President. He is trying to cram more sunshine up our rears which demands the follow up... then why have you not done that??? You have had 3 years. Everyone understands the Emporer is scantily clad.

So he rolled out his 5 point plan that gave no more specifics than Romney has done... and you know full well all those "goal" are targets based on assumptions and juked numbers and specifics don't actually mean anything based on sand. So you can say you want more spcifics on how the smoke is actually generated... but what is the point?

And this ladies and gentlemen is why Obama will be re-elected. He has taken enough money from one group or really, I guess, has borrowed enough from China or a combination of the two to bribe and buy votes from people willing to trade liberty for free shtuff with OPM and in the process do away with the need for personal responsibility.

As far as fact checking, what is the IRS code that rewards business for sending jobs over seas?

If in fact there is such a provision in the code why has Obama not changed that since he's been in office, or ever provided some serious detail as to what it is?

Nancy while that appears to be good news for the economy it really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You might want to start a new thread to discuss the unemployment rate being 30% higher than what President Obama said it would be at this point in time.

I would still like answers to the two questions I asked you about President Obama's claim on the incentive for shipping jobs overseas.

I've highlighted/bolded the questions below for your convenience.

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Nancy while that appears to be good news for the economy it really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. You might want to start a new thread to discuss the unemployment rate being 30% higher than what President Obama said it would be at this point in time.

I would still like answers to the two questions I asked you about President Obama's claim on the incentive for shipping jobs overseas.

I've highlighted/bolded the questions below for your convenience.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Josh will tell you Obama's plans are no different.  That's why he's consistently championed a third party candidate and argued that there's absolutely no difference in electing a Rep or Dem president.

Here you go, with both the conservative spin and the liberal spin for your convenience.  A bill in the Senate (S.3364) to end the "loophole" failed cloture back in back in July when Democrats couldn't break the Republican filibuster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1140134/-Fact-Check-Tax-Breaks-for-Shipping-Jobs-Overseas

Hey somebody listened to me! Do I win the intrawebs? I've actually had some PM discussions with Powerman and we're mostly on the same page. 

To Powerman: Obama has a record to defend though. Romney has nothing to stand on. He is constantly shifting his position on what he wants to do whenever someone attacks him on his current idea.

TriRSquared - 2012-10-05 7:05 AM

nancylee - 2012-10-05 9:41 AM

Left Brain - 2012-10-04 3:47 PM Is the next debate about Foreign Policy?  Obama should just call in sick.

The man who got Osama bin Laden, got us out of Iraq, and is working on getting us out of Afghanistan should call in sick. How does that make any sense???

The man who got OBL based on 8 years of Bush admin intelligence?

The man who promised to shut down Gitmo on day one of his Presidency yet it's still open almost 4 years later?

The man who followed Bush's time table, to the day, to withdraw from Iraq?

The man who tried to blame the attack on our embassy in Egypt on a YouTube video, and now is at the center of a controversy that claims they knew about possible attacks yet did nothing?

The man responsible for more deaths in Afghanistan in 3.5 years than Bush's 7 years?

Yeah, that guy.

Great post, just thought it was worth repeating.

Thanks for linking those.  I love the spin on the Daily KOS side.

From Fox

Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas. 

However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies moving work out of America, as the president sometimes makes it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business.   

That means a company can claim the deduction whether it's moving operations to Bangalore or Boston, to Kuala Lumpur or Kansas City. 

"Any cost of doing business is deductible," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office who advised Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race. "There's no special (incentive to move jobs overseas)." 

What Democrats want to do is end the deduction for firms moving overseas, in order to create a disincentive to offshore. What they say, though, makes it sound like the tax code is currently luring companies out of the U.S. 

From Daily KOS

Obama wins this round.

Romney’s recently released tax returns made it clear that he and his accountant are quite familiar with navigating the tax code. Romney should know that the law currently allows a company that closes its American plant and moves manufacturing operations overseas to deduct that moving expense.

The New York Times says, “It is true.”  Reuters writes that there really are “deductions allowed for a company if it closes its plant in the United States and moves it to another country.” The conservative Boston Herald declared it a “huge gaffe.” Even Fox News’s fact check admits, “Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.”

In fact, Senate Republicans recently blocked a Democratic bill that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States and ended a tax break for companies moving operations overseas.

Can you give me some examples?  And.....he can certainly stand on his record as Gov. of Mass....right?  I'm not trying to be snarky....I don't follow politics that closely.  The only thing I know is that the liberal agenda doesn't work for me.

He could stand on his record as governor except he seems to be running away from it because he was a moderate.

His stance on tax cuts is an example of his shifting plans. First he said a 20% across the board cut that would be paid for by reducing deductions. Then when the TPC said he would have to remove popular deductions like mortgage interest to make it revenue neutral, he said they were lying. Then he said that middle class families shouldn't expect a big tax cut from him. Then he said he wouldn't raise taxes on rich people. Then he said he will raise taxes on rich people. Then he came out with his $17,000 deduction. In the debate he said it could be $25,000 or $50,000. 

In summary, I have no idea what his tax cutting plans are.

Ok...and again, I'm not baiting you, I'm asking.  The first I'd heard Romney speak was the debate....I just don't pay attention to all of the noise until it gets close like now.  Taking what he said at the debate, and given his record in Mass, and his experience with private business....do you not think he is the clear choice between him and Obama when it comes to leadign this country out of it's fiscal problems?  From my seat, Obama is completely clueless, and his record shows that.  Again, I'm not baiting, I'm trying to figure if I'm missing something with Obama.

Hey somebody listened to me! Do I win the intrawebs? I've actually had some PM discussions with Powerman and we're mostly on the same page. 

To Powerman: Obama has a record to defend though. Romney has nothing to stand on. He is constantly shifting his position on what he wants to do whenever someone attacks him on his current idea.

Well Romney does have a record to stand on as Govenor. But to be the GOP nominee, then you have to preach party lines and rally the far right base. Romney has been doing just that and looks like a flip flopper. He has changed his position to apease the far right. His Mass record is much more centrist and would probably appeal to more people if Romney could actually run as Romney.

EDIT: That's what I never understood. The far right know exactly who Romney is. They will vote against Obama no matter what. The GOP already has their vote. Romney turns off the independents flip flopping and adopting a solid Right stance.

I read an article the other day that depicted Reagan trying to run for office today.  With him being a California moderate that changed several positions including his stance on abortion would be labeled a flip flopper and never win the nomination due to being far to moderate and not a "true conservative".

But to be the GOP nominee, then you have to preach party lines and rally the far right base.

Somewhat hijacking question: So why was there no challenger in the DNC race?

No only have we whittled it down to 2 parties but if you are a 1st term President no matter how bad you screw up you are automatically the nominee for the second term?  I think we've passed the point where the government is "by the people, of the people and for the people"

Political suicide. Surely you do not expect the Party to actually admit their guy sucks do you? It would be a 100% garanteed loss. No point in even running a challenger.