Let The Debates Begin! Obama v Romney

It sure is. I can't do it anymore! - Oni

I listened to the debates this morning...had to work last night. Romney did have a good point when he said

quote:

---

I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high- income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.

---

He goes on to specify

quote:

---

I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

---

. What puzzles me is where the money will come from to pay the inevitable bill that must be paid. Romney also says

quote:

---

I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.

---

Romney does say that his priority is jobs. I suspect, however, that what he means is, by and large, cheap jobs. I'm gonna get on my whine again and tell everybody that if my job, which i earn every penny, by the way, is cut to make way for cheaper labor that it will not help my economy.Going on to the other cost cuts, Obama hit the nail on the head when he said

quote:

---

When I walked in the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion dollar deficit greeting me, and we know where it came from. Two wars that were paid for on a credit card. Two tax cuts that were not paid for, and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for. And then a massive economic crisis.

---

First off, I think that the concept of an American Empire, a military-industrial complex--is the reason for these two wars. I also believe that Republicans represent the wealthy, many of whom make a lot of money off of the military hardware as well as the wars themselves. Im skeptical of the way that we do business with the world, yet I also believe that Republicans tend to be realists...they are hard, cold and calculating...they know that some folks will get left behind and that reality is a competitive arena. Democrats, OTOH, are idealists. They believe in helping everyone. Just like at my work, its impossible to pay everyone the same wage without lowering mine. In that sense, seniority and wage entitlement-wise, I am a "republican".Overall, reality is as it is. Most say that Romney won this initial debate, but I suspect that whoever gets into office, taxes will go up, prices will still increase, the bill will get paid, (as jar says) and life will cost more. The question is, do we realistically leave half the people behind or do we try and wait for everyone to catch up----at our collective expense?

Are those the only options?

Didn't watch it, but the reviews suggest Obama choked.Interesting take from England:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/...rperform-we-saw-the-real-man

Depends on the specific situation. I suppose that these are not the only two options...there are many variables and combinations of actions that consensus would allow.At my work, for example, it would make sense to freeze...but not drop top level wages and increase the bottom wages so as to allow less disparity. I would be in favor of a wage freeze but not in favor of a wage cut. Same thing applies on a national scale. Some of us may not get tax cuts, but there is nothing stopping a tax freeze. My question regarding the bill however is how best to pay it while impacting the working class the least. For example, you have often said that gas should cost more, but would ten dollar a gallon gas hurt the working class and would it affect food prices? I think that many of these issues need to be thought out more and that the public should be better informed. Its not easy doing all of the homework, however.

This suggests both parties have raised about the same amount but that the dems have spent more of it to date.Do you think this explains Obama’s present lead? Do you think if they both spend the same amount (roughly) that it will be a close contest?Has the biggest spender ever lost the election?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't like the Washington Post, but here's the NY Times on it. Obama has raised more and spent about $85 million more as of August. Obama did out campaign Romney. I don't if that's why he's currently in the lead. All I'm saying is, the candidate that spends the most wins. It's an ad campaign. Not that I know of. Money Wins Presidency

quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The historic election of 2008 re-confirmed one truism about American democracy: Money wins elections.

​

From the top of the ticket, where Barack Obama declined public financing for the first time since the system's creation and went on to amass a nearly two-to-one monetary advantage over John McCain, to congressional races throughout the nation, the candidate with the most money going into Election Day emerged victorious in nearly every contest.

​

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

​

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

​

"The 2008 election will go down in U.S. history as an election of firsts, but this was far from the first time that money was overwhelmingly victorious on Election Day," Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said. "The best-funded candidates won nine out of 10 contests, and all but a few members of Congress will be returning to Washington."

---

- Oni

You know I empathize. When Bush Jr. was 'elected' for his second term, my political apathies and cynicism climbed sky-high. It seems americans are willfully ignorant, and they will always willfully choose a candidate that is against their best interests. Nothing can be done.Thank god for alcohol and nudie bars.

I'm more of a weed and porn kind of guy. But I think we can both agree Americans are easily fooled into thinking presidential elections mean something.- Oni

None of the above. Obama could have delivered what he had to say in a better manner. I think Obama was correct in every respect, but he came across as listless, bored, and peeved at every lie Romney spoke. He was absolutely right that Romney's lack of any real plans was completely transparent.Why didn't Obama respond at all to the labeling of his 90 billion dollar investment in green energy as completely wasted.On the front of pretending to be able to work in a non-partisan way, Romney actually bragged about selling an ACA-like health plan to democrats, and then later complained that no Republicans, including supported the plan in Congress. Romney's own ideas on health care reform were transparently absent. The only parts he could spell out were parts of ACA that he would keep. When Romney stated that insurance companies were already making changes, Obama could easily have pointed out that the companies were reacting to ACA.In short, Romney served up a bunch of hanging curves that Obama could have swatted completely out of Coors field. Obama missed essentially all of them. Of course. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, presidential elections certainly mean something to the corporations that bought 'em. I doubt our stark differences can ever be mediated. I say 'good day sir!'

Yeah, but correlation is not causation. People give money to a candidate 'cos they like him, so it serves as an index of his popularity.

And Obama rebutted that: "It was a Republican idea." And, wow, imagine that - it didn't end the election right there, it didn't cause Romney to say "oh, you're right, I guess I'm a shameless liar", it didn't cause him to evaporate in a puff of logic or any of the other scenarios Green Lantern Liberals like you imagine will happen if only Obama was a little more like Jeb Bartlett. Did he miss "hanging curves" or baited traps? As the example with Romneycare proves, Romney's team knew what the obvious lines of attack were going to be, and they were ready for them. Remember all those "zingers" we heard about that didn't materialize? I'm not enthused about Obama's performance either, but you can't make money betting against him, and it seems pretty obvious to me that Obama's plan was to avoid giving Romney the opportunity to spring any of his prepared traps. All Obama has to do is run out the clock. Romney's behind and that hasn't changed.

Not at all. If there was a cap on how much ANY entity can contribute, then maybe, but as it is now there is no regulation. If a candidate received $1 from 3 million people and the other candidate received $6 million from one person, sure, the guy with 3 million supporters is more popular. But that's not how it works. When Dreamworks Animation donates $2 million it doesn't mean 2 million people support Obama.You can raise way more money than the other candidate from far fewer sources and not be as popular.- Oni

Would it be more accurate to say that the amount of money corporations give to a candidate serves as an index to the expected favors in return?