Jump to content

Debates


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

Romney looked good. Obama looked uncomfortable. Romney did not have many specifics. Obama didn't do a good job of nailing Romney on his distance from normal humans. Both just seemed to disagree with eachother and say whatever the other just said was inaccurate. I am voting for Obama but was pleasantly surprised by Romney tonight. If he pushed education the way he said he would, if he pushes for some form of universal health care and if he doesn't cut taxes on the rich those are all things I can get behind. However I am not sure I really believe him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b][color=#0000FF][My take on the Presidential Debate][/color]

President Obama's problem is that he tries to be polite and professorial while remaining "above the fray"; I think psychologically he is afraid of being seen as the "angry black man" in a white man's world. However, Obama is debating a lying sociopath, the kind of guy who had factory workers build the large stage that his company Bain used the next day to fire them on. It's frustrating that Obama didn’t mention Romney's tax dodging money in the Cayman Islands or his Swiss Bank accounts. Obama didn't mention the 47 % comment and how there is one Romney when you pay $ 50,000 a plate to eat dinner with him and he thinks nobody is watching, and another Romney that is in front of national TV cameras.

Of course plutocrat Romney is a slick performer; this is a guy who made a quarter billion dollars by using bank loans to buyout profitable companies and then loading those companies up with debt before then declaring bankruptcy – after keeping the profits he paid to himself. He is Gordon Gekko on steroids, who has been prepping for the White House since his father ran for President when he was a child. Romney probably debates one of his many personalities in the mirror while he brushes his teeth in the morning, so debating him is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall ... but Obama needs to fight! I realize Obama was probably tired from a day of actually being President (while Romney tanned by the pool), but call out all the lies and don't just hand the White House over to Patrick Bateman from 'American Psycho' without a struggle.[/b]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of them are going to do anything of what they say. Flip a coin and vote a straight ticket that way. I heard Obama is going to try and win the election by having all the voting booths in the south drop the 'O' from the start of his name, hoping all the rednecks will vote for Bama.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349328816' post='1166094']
Neither of them are going to do anything of what they say. Flip a coin and vote a straight ticket that way. [color=#ff0000] I heard Obama is going to try and win the election by having all the voting booths in the south drop the 'O' from the start of his name, hoping all the rednecks will vote for Bama.[/color]
[/quote]

:lol:

Nixon had his Southern Strategy, this must be Obamas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1349327855' post='1166093']
[b][color=#0000FF][My take on the Presidential Debate][/color]

President Obama's problem is that he tries to be polite and professorial while remaining "above the fray"; I think psychologically he is afraid of being seen as the "angry black man" in a white man's world. However, Obama is debating a lying sociopath, the kind of guy who had factory workers build the large stage that his company Bain used the next day to fire them on. It's frustrating that Obama didn’t mention Romney's tax dodging money in the Cayman Islands or his Swiss Bank accounts. Obama didn't mention the 47 % comment and how there is one Romney when you pay $ 50,000 a plate to eat dinner with him and he thinks nobody is watching, and another Romney that is in front of national TV cameras.

Of course plutocrat Romney is a slick performer; this is a guy who made a quarter billion dollars by using bank loans to buyout profitable companies and then loading those companies up with debt before then declaring bankruptcy – after keeping the profits he paid to himself. He is Gordon Gekko on steroids, who has been prepping for the White House since his father ran for President when he was a child. Romney probably debates one of his many personalities in the mirror while he brushes his teeth in the morning, so debating him is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall ... but Obama needs to fight! I realize Obama was probably tired from a day of actually being President (while Romney tanned by the pool), but call out all the lies and don't just hand the White House over to Patrick Bateman from 'American Psycho' without a struggle.[/b]
[/quote]

Agree with all of it. I just hope that people who were undecided tune in for the next round of debates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney crushed Obama in the debates. It wasn't even close.

Aren't all politicans sociopathic liars? How could you make it that far without being one? I wish I were kidding but only a sociopathic liar can get in front of a few billion people, tell us a load of BS, and then do the exact opposite once they are elected... And its not like this is a new development. Every single presidential debate follows this same narrative.

I am obviously going to vote for Romney in this election so I am biased, but I sat there literally perplexed at least 10 times at the lies that were coming out of Obama's mouth. I mean at least with Romney we haven't all seen it with our own eyes. How can Obama still talk about cutting deficit while it has skyrocketed consistently while he was president.

If you are going to base your vote on who the other person lying then you are doing a major disservice to yourself and this country considering they are all lying, cheating, filthy rich assholes. They couldn't make it as far as they did if they weren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't believe Obama and his advisers basically "pulled him back"... his greatest asset is his oratory skills and he looked 1 of 3 things: unprepared, just doesn't want to win the election, or someone in the networks told him he's winning by too much and we need to build suspense so throw off... I say those things mostly in jest. I was just really disappointed in Obama's performance last night - he got curb stopped.

Romney came out on the attack and made Obama his bitch last night. I expect a more fiery Obama in future debates. i certainly hope so anyway.

As for content... their mouths were moving so you know they were lying. Just really disappointed that Obama didn't look more in control and put together more coherent points. Dude... you were getting punked and just took it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1349353942' post='1166127']
Romney crushed Obama in the debates. It wasn't even close.

Aren't all politicans sociopathic liars? How could you make it that far without being one? I wish I were kidding but only a sociopathic liar can get in front of a few billion people, tell us a load of BS, and then do the exact opposite once they are elected... And its not like this is a new development. Every single presidential debate follows this same narrative.

I am obviously going to vote for Romney in this election so I am biased, [color=#ff0000]but I sat there literally perplexed at least 10 times at the lies that were coming out of Obama's mouth.[/color] I mean at least with Romney we haven't all seen it with our own eyes. How can Obama still talk about cutting deficit while it has skyrocketed consistently while he was president.

If you are going to base your vote on who the other person lying then you are doing a major disservice to yourself and this country considering they are all lying, cheating, filthy rich assholes. They couldn't make it as far as they did if they weren't.
[/quote]

Well if that isnt irony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/"]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/[/url]



[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney traded barbs Wednesday night on taxes, jobs, health care and the economy — and often stretched the facts.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
"Mr. President," Romney said, "you're entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts."[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
Romney also would have benefited from that advice.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
We're combing through the pair's remarks from the University of Denver's Ritchie Center, where moderator Jim Lehrer focused on the economy, health care, the role of government and governing.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
Here's what we've checked so far:[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
[b]Taxes[/b][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama said that Romney's plan "calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The figure accounts for only half of Romney's plan, and it's cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he hasn't specified what those changes would be. The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and that Romney would not fill in the gaps. We rated the claim [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/barack-obama/obama-says-romneys-plan-5-trillion-tax-cut/"]Half True.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama said that "independent studies" looking at Romney's tax plan say the only way to meet Romney's goal of not adding to the deficit is by "burdening middle class families." A reputable study from the Tax Policy Center found that to meet Romney's deficit goal, middle class taxpayers might lose exemptions and deductions worth about $2,000. So we previously have rated [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/03/barack-obama/obama-romney-would-cut-millionaires-taxes/"]Mostly True[/url] a claim that Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney said six tax studies look at a study that Obama described and "say it's completely wrong." Previously, Romney has claimed that five studies back his tax plan. We found that [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/"]Mostly False.[/url] We saw no more than two independent studies out of the five claimed.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama said he "lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times." When we examined his claim last summer that his administration had "provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses," we rated it [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-credit-least-16-tax-cuts-small/"]Mostly True[/url], noting that conservative tax specialists say the statistic ignores proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
[b]Deficit[/b][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney claimed that Obama had said he would "cut the deficit in half." That's the case. We rated a claim from Crossroads GPS that Obama failed to keep his pledge of halving the deficit[url="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/may/17/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-ad-says-obama-failed-keep-pledge-ha/"]True.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama said he put forward "a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan." That's true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we've previously found his claim that his budget plan would "cut our deficits by $4 trillion" [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/obama-says-budget-plan-cut-deficits-4-trillion/"]Half True.[/url])[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
[b]Jobs[/b][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney said part of his plan to create jobs includes North American energy independence. He said that while oil and gas production might be up, Obama shouldn't get credit — the increase was on private lands, not public. We have previously found that oil production on public lands dropped 14 percent in one year, but that's not the whole story. It was small snapshot, and partly because of hurricanes. We rated a claim from Crossroads GPS that oil "production's down where Obama's in charge" [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/13/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-ad-oil-production-obama/"]Half True.[/url] Our reporting confirmed Romney's claim that Obama shouldn't get credit — but neither, perhaps, should President George W. Bush.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney said half of college graduates can't find a job. We've previously rated that [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-50-percent-kids-coming-out-school/"]Mostly True[/url] — about a quarter of recent college grads can't find a job, while another quarter found jobs that don't require college degrees.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
[b]Medicare[/b][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney claimed "on Medicare for current retirees, (Obama is) cutting $716 billion from the program." That amount refers to Obama's reductions in Medicare spending over 10 years, primarily in what's paid to insurers and hospitals. But the statement gives the impression that the law takes money already allocated to Medicare away from current recipients. We rated Romney's claim [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/03/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cut-716-billion-medicare/"]Half True.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney also claimed that Obama used those Medicare savings to pay for his health care law. We've previously rated Romney's claim that Obama took that money from Medicare "to pay for Obamacare" [url="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/20/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-cuts-716-medicare-pay-obamacare/"]Half True.[/url] The new health care law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Those savings are used to offset costs created by the health care law — especially coverage for the uninsured — so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama claimed that the "essence" of Romney's plan for retiree health care was to "turn Medicare into a voucher program." Romney would give seniors a premium support payment toward private insurance, to replace the current system of government payments to doctors and hospitals. Generally, we think "voucher program" is a fair way of describing to voters the vision for Medicare under a Romney-Ryan administration. We rated Obama's claim [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/03/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-wants-turn-medicare-voucher-prog/"]Mostly True.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama recycled an outdated number about vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's original Medicare proposal, saying that "because the voucher wouldn't necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year." That ignores a more recent Ryan proposal that pegs the size of the voucher to the second-cheapest plan available on a Medicare exchange. We rated a related claim from the secretary of Health and Human Services last month [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/05/kathleen-sebelius/kathleen-sebelius-repeats-problematic-claim-romney/"]Half True.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
[b]Health care[/b][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney said that Obama failed to cut health care premiums by $2,500. That's true. On our Obameter, which tracks Obama's 2008 campaign promises, we've rated that a [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/"]Promise Broken[/url].[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama said that Romney used the same advisers to create his Massachusetts health plan that Obama later did for his health care law. Rick Santorum once claimed that a "Romney adviser admits Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare." If [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/16/rick-santorum/rombo-ad-rick-santorum-says-mitt-romney-adviser-eq/"]Santorum's ad[/url] had said "former adviser," that would have been True. [/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Obama claimed that Romney said his Massachusetts law was a "model for the nation." Romney later fired back that he said it was a model "state by state," not from the federal government down. We've previously found that an [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/11/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-mitt-romneys-book-deleted-line-mas/"]early version of Romney's book[/url] [i]No Apology[/i] did advocate the Massachusetts model as a strong option for other states, as Romney said.[/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
• Romney said that Obama "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." Romney avoided the more inaccurate and harsher wording of some other critics, who have falsely described the board as "rationing" care. But Romney's claim can leave viewers with the impression that the board makes health care decisions for individual Americans, and that's not the case. We rated his statement [url="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/mitt-romney/romney-says-ipab-board-can-tell-people-ultimately-/"]Mostly False.[/url][/background][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(229, 229, 229)]
We'll update this story as we post new fact-checks.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/"]http://factcheck.org...e-declarations/[/url]


[b] [color=#800000][background=transparent]Summary[/background][/color][/b]

[color=#333333]We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.[/color][list]
[*]Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
[*]Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
[*]Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
[*]Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
[*]Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
[*]Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.
[*]Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
[*]Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
[*]Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
[/list]
[color=#333333]Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator. He said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million. He said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower. He claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or[i]under[/i]employed. And he again said Obama “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.[/color]
[b] [color=#800000][background=transparent]Analysis[/background][/color][/b]

[color=#333333][color=#800000][background=transparent][color=#000000][background=transparent]The [url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html"]debate was held Oct. 3[/url] inside [url="http://debate2012.du.edu/venue/index.html"]a huge sports center[/url] at the University of Denver. It was the first of three scheduled debates between President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. It was carried live on national TV networks and radio.[/background][/color][/background][/color][/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]$5 Trillion Tax Cut[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here — Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Obama:[/b] Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.[/background]
[background=transparent][b]Romney:[/b] First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]To be clear, Romney has [url="http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax"]proposed cutting[/url] personal federal income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, in addition to extending the tax cuts enacted early in the Bush administration. He also proposes to eliminate the estate tax permanently, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends for taxpayers making under $200,000 a year in adjusted gross income.[/color]
[color=#333333]By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower federal tax liability by “about [url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm"]$480 billion in calendar year 2015[/url]” compared with current tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure out over 10 years, [url="http://www.barackobama.com/buffett-rule/tax-fairness/#citation-4"]coming up with a $5 trillion[/url] figure over a decade.[/color]
[color=#333333]However, Romney always has said he planned to offset that massive cut with equally massive reductions in tax preferences to broaden the tax base, thus losing no revenue and not increasing the deficit. So to that extent, the president is incorrect: Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion reduction in taxes.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]The Impossible Plan[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which [url="http://www.irs.gov/uac/In-2012,-Many-Tax-Benefits-Increase-Due-to-Inflation-Adjustments"]falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million[/url] left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/"]wasn’t mathematically possible[/url] for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.[/color]
[color=#333333]Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Romney:[/b] My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. … I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans. … I will lower taxes on middle-income families.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]But he didn’t say how he’d pull off all those things at once.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]‘Six Other Studies’[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]When the president referred to the Tax Policy Center’s criticisms, Romney claimed it was contradicted by several others.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Romney:[/b] There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]That’s not quite true, as [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-economic-exaggerations-2/"]we previously reported[/url] when the count was at five. We found that two of those “studies” were blog items by Romney backers, and none was nonpartisan.[/color]
[color=#333333]The only one of those “studies” by someone not advising Romney was done by [url="http://harveysrosen.com/"]Harvey Rosen[/url], a Princeton economics professor who once served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.[/color]
[color=#333333]Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience. Despite Bush’s large tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, for example, [url="http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1"]real GDP grew by 3 percent or more for only two of his eight years[/url] in office. The average of the year-to-year changes was just over 2 percent.[/color]
[color=#333333]Furthermore, Bush’s cuts reduced the total tax burden on the economy because they were not offset by base-broadening measures. In theory, at least, Romney’s revenue-neutral rate cuts would have even less of a stimulative effect than Bush’s cuts did.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][b][background=transparent]Overselling the Health Care Law[/background][/b][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, not premiums. But even if Obama had worded the claim correctly, he still would have been off in suggesting the Affordable Care Act had caused the slower growth in spending.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Obama:[/b] And the fact of the matter is that, when Obamacare is fully implemented, we’re going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. And over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it’s true — but they’ve gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we’re already beginning to see progress.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]The growth in employer-sponsored family premiums has fluctuated in recent years. It [url="http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091112nr.cfm"]went up just 4 percent[/url] from 2011 to 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, but it[url="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/"]increased 9 percent[/url] the year before, a big jump from the mere 3 percent increase between 2009 and 2010. Clearly the [url="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/27/business/A-Jump-in-Health-Care-Premiums.html?ref=business"]growth rate[/url] over the last two years isn’t a 50-year low — it was sitting around 5 percent from 2007 to 2009. However, the [url="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/1/208.abstract"]growth of health care costs[/url] is at a 50-year low for the past two years.[/color]
[color=#333333]President Bill Clinton [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/"]used this statistic[/url], correctly, in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, also implying that the federal health care law deserved credit. But as we said then, most of the law hasn’t even been implemented yet. And experts say it’s the sluggish economy that’s mainly responsible for the slower rate of spending. [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010506740.html"]As the [i]Washington Post[/i] reported,[/url] experts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that many lost employer-sponsored insurance when they lost their jobs, and other individuals chose to “forgo health-care services they could not afford.”[/color]
[color=#333333]The [i]New York Times[/i] quoted experts saying that consumers’ and medical professionals’ behavior could be changing in anticipation of the law, but it was still the economy that was the leading factor.[/color]
[color=#333333]As for that increase in health care [i]premiums[/i], experts [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/"]told us[/url] the federal health care law has had a limited impact on those, too, but the impact was to increase costs. They said the law was responsible for a 1 percent to 3 percent increase last year because of more generous coverage requirements.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]Treatment Denied?[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Romney repeatedly claimed that a new government board was “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. It could make some binding recommendations about such things as what drugs or medical devices would be paid for by Medicare, but it has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care.[/color]
[color=#333333]The board is a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health care. And, [url="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf"]according to the law[/url], the board can’t touch treatments or otherwise “ration” care, or restrict benefits.[/color]
[color=#333333]What’s officially called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, made up of appointed health care experts, medical professionals, and consumer representatives, would make binding recommendations to reduce the growth of spending. Congress could override them with a three-fifths majority in each house.[/color]
[color=#333333]An [url="http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8150.pdf"]analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation[/url] determined that the IPAB was limited to finding savings from “Medicare Advantage, the Part D prescription drug program, skilled nursing facility, home health, dialysis, ambulance and ambulatory surgical center services, and durable medical equipment.”[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]5 million jobs?[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Obama claimed that “over the last 30 months, we’ve seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created.”[/color]
[color=#333333]Obama’s figure is nearly half a million jobs short, according to current Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. But he’s including in his count a preliminary revision of jobs figures that BLS will not finalize until next year.[/color]
[color=#333333]The current BLS numbers are [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm"]based[/url] on monthly surveys of businesses and government entities and count how many workers are on the payroll. Those figures [url="http://www.bls.gov/ces/"]show[/url] that the number of private-sector jobs grew by 4.63 million between February 2010 and August of this year.[/color]
[color=#333333]But BLS often revises those figures. Each year, the agency [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/economy-added-386000-more-jobs-last-year-than-we-thought/?print=1"]looks over[/url] companies’ tax records in an effort to get a more accurate number, a process that takes several months. In late September, BLS[url="http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesprelbmk.htm"]released[/url] a preliminary estimate for its revised numbers, adding 453,000 private-sector jobs to its count for the time period between April 2011 and March 2012. BLS will release its final numbers in February.[/color]
[color=#333333]The addition of the preliminary estimate brings the number of private-sectors jobs to more than 5 million.[/color]
[color=#333333][b][size=1][background=transparent]Obama ‘Doubled’ Deficit?[/background][/size][/b][/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Romney[/b]: The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]It’s not true that Obama “doubled” the deficit. He inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and deficits have remained at or above that level, as Romney said, every year since then. Romney is right, however, that Obama has not kept his promise to cut the deficit in half.[/color]
[color=#333333]Here’s the budget history in brief: The 2009 fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was president, and ended Sept. 30, 2009 with Obama as president. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already [url="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/toc.htm"]estimated[/url] that the federal government would end fiscal 2009 with a $1.2 trillion deficit because of higher spending and lower revenues.[/color]
[color=#333333]Obama added to the 2009 deficit, but not by much. [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/"]We found[/url] that Obama was responsible at most for an additional $203 billion. The government ended $1.4 trillion in the red that year. The deficits were about [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls"]$1.3 trillion each year for the next two years[/url], and this fiscal year just ended with a shortfall of nearly[url="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43572"]$1.2 trillion[/url].[/color]
[color=#333333]So, Obama didn’t double the deficits. But the president did pledge to cut them in half by the end of his first term during his [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-address-joint-session-congress"]State of the Union address[/url] on Feb. 24, 2009. A Congressional Budget Office[url="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf"]analysis[/url] of the president’s latest budget plan doesn’t show the deficit being cut in half until 2014.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]Same Rates as Under Clinton?[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Obama[/b]: But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]Obama is referring to his plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for higher-income taxpayers. The top federal income-tax rate would be allowed to rise from the current 35 percent to [url="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Allow-top-two-rates-to-rise.cfm"]39.6 percent[/url], which was the rate that prevailed after Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, and before Bush’s tax cuts. The next-highest rate would go back to the Clinton-era 36 percent, starting with family income over $250,000 (or $200,000 for singles), up from the Bush rate of 33 percent.[/color]
[color=#333333]But Obama did not account for the new taxes on those same upper-income taxpayers included in his Affordable Care Act. Starting next year, there will be a new [url="http://www.aicpa.org/Publications/TaxAdviser/2011/July/Pages/fava_jul2011.aspx"]3.8 percent tax on “unearned” net investment income[/url] — such as capital gains from the sale of stocks or real estate, dividends, interest income, annuities, rents and royalties. Also [url="http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Questions-and-Answers-for-the-Additional-Medicare-Tax"]starting Jan. 1 is a new 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge[/url] on top of the current Medicare payroll tax. Both taxes apply to taxable compensation that exceeds $200,000 for singles, or $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Those two taxes combined are projected to bring in nearly $210 billion over the next seven years, according to the[url="https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3672"] nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation[/url].[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][b][background=transparent]Income Loss[/background][/b][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]As he has done a number of times recently, Romney inflated the loss of income for middle-income Americans under Obama.[/color]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Romney[/b]: Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]Romney didn’t clarify whether he was talking about household or family income, but either way, the number is inflated.[/color]
[color=#333333]The latest figures from the Census Bureau for 2011 show that real household income (inflation-adjusted)[url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2011/H06AR_2011.xls"]fell[/url] by $2,492 during Obama’s first three years in office. Real family income (again, inflation-adjusted) [url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2011/F06AR_2011.xls"]fell[/url]by $3,290.[/color]
[color=#333333]There’s also some reason to think the income decline bottomed out a year ago. Sentier Research, which Romney has in the past cited as his source, says [url="http://www.sentierresearch.com/reports/Sentier_Household_Income_Trends_Report_July2012_09_10_12.pdf"]in its latest report — issued Sept. 10[/url], that household income rose in the year since September 2011, when Sentier’s Seasonally Adjusted Household Income Index hit its lowest point. (See Figure 1, Page 10.)[/color]
[color=#333333]As part of the same riff on the hardships facing middle-income Americans, Romney also noted that “gasoline prices have doubled under the president.” That’s true, but as we have noted [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-big-night/"]before[/url], the price of gasoline was unusually low when Obama took office due to the recession and financial crisis.[/color]
[color=#333333]The average price for regular gasoline was $3.80 last week, [url="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W"]according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration[/url], a bit more than double the $1.84 average the week Obama took office. But the average exceeded $4 a gallon for seven weeks during the summer of 2008, and it has never reached $4 under Obama.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]Obama’s $4 Trillion Reduction Plan[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[indent=1]
[background=transparent][b]Obama[/b]: I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. It’s on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.[/background][/indent]

[color=#333333]Nonpartisan and bipartisan budget analysts have been critical of the methodology Obama employed to get to the $4 trillion in cuts outlined in “[url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf"]The President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction[/url].” Specifically, the plan’s inclusion of “more than $1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years from our drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq,” was [url="http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/crfb_reacts_to_presidents_fy2013_budget_0.pdf"]criticized[/url] by Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, as a “gimmick.”[/color]
[color=#333333]“Drawing down spending on wars that were already set to wind down and that were deficit financed in the first place should not be considered savings,” MacGuineas said. “When you finish college, you don’t suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere – in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans.”[/color]
[color=#333333]And as we have [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-stump-speech/"]noted[/url], even if you accept Obama’s $4 trillion claim, the president’s own Office of Management and Budget projected annual federal deficits would never be lower than $476 billion. That’s[url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls"]higher than any year of the Bush administration[/url] except for the $1.4 trillion shortfall for fiscal 2009, for which [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/"]Obama himself bears some responsibility[/url]. And under Obama’s plan, deficits would again rise during the last three years of the 10-year period, reaching $565 billion in 2021 (see table S-1).[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]20 Million ‘Lose Their Insurance’?[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Romney said “the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year.” The [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/chamber-continues-to-mislead-on-health-care-law/"]Congressional Budget Office[/url] said that may happen under a very pessimistic scenario. But the agency said it is more likely that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, would obtain health insurance from their employer under the law. The CBO also said that it was possible that more people would be covered by employers, not fewer, under a more optimistic scenario.[/color]
[color=#333333]What’s more, these individuals wouldn’t necessarily “lose … insurance” entirely. Many would qualify for federal subsidies to buy policies offered through the new state exchanges established by the law, or qualify for Medicaid.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]23 Million ‘Out of Work’?[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Romney overstated the number of unemployed Americans when he said that there were “23 million people out of work.” There were [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm"]12.5 million[/url] unemployed Americans in August, the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.[/color]
[color=#333333]Romney meant to refer to the unemployed, plus those working part-time who want full-time work (8 million) and those who are considered [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm"]“marginally attached”[/url] to the labor force because they have not looked for work in the past four weeks (2.6 million). All of that adds up to 23.1 million. Romney got his talking point closer to the truth when he said, “We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country.” But he still left out the 8 million who are working part-time for economic reasons.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]Jobless Grads[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Romney said that “50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.” That’s not correct. Romney is likely referring to an [url="http://news.yahoo.com/1-2-graduates-jobless-underemployed-140300522.html"]analysis of government data[/url] conducted for the Associated Press that found that — in 2011 — 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 were unemployed or[i]underemployed[/i] that year. But it’s not correct to say that a person who is underemployed — meaning that they have a part-time job, or a job for which they were overqualified — can’t find work. It’s also a figure that applies to last year, not “this year” as Romney said.[/color]
[color=#333333]Romney continued to repeat his misleading claim that Obama’s Affordable Care Act “cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients.” That’s a reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, not a $716 billion slashing of the current budget.[/color]
[size=4][color=#333333][background=transparent][b]$716 Billion, Again[/b][/background][/color][/size]
[color=#333333]Romney went on to say, “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare.” But the fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare. Instead, Medicare would spend it, but over a longer period of time than was expected before the health care law. The law extends the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.[/color]
[color=#333333]As [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/"]we’ve explained before[/url], most of this reduction in spending comes in Medicare Part A, or hospital coverage, through a reduction in the growth of payments to hospitals. Medicare payroll taxes, which fund Part A, are either immediately spent by Medicare as they come in, or they’re put in a trust fund. Medicare gets a bond for that tax money from Treasury. And any time Medicare wants to cash in that bond, it can. Treasury has to pay it — even if Treasury already spent the original money on something else.[/color]
[color=#333333]Cutting the growth of Medicare spending is a good thing — without these $716 billion cuts, Part A’s trust fund is expected to be depleted in 2016. But with them, that date is pushed back to 2024. At that point, Medicare’s payroll tax revenue would only be enough to cover 87 percent of benefits.[/color]
[color=#333333]That’s if the reductions in spending growth are actually instituted as the law envisions. Medicare’s actuaries are skeptical. They [url="https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2010.pdf"]have said[/url] that many experts believe the “price constraints would become unworkable and that Congress would likely override them.”[/color]
[color=#333333]Romney said: “Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won’t take any more Medicare patients under that scenario.” That’s close to what Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, [url="http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fostertestimony1262011.pdf"]said[/url] in congressional testimony in January 2011. Foster said that his office’s economic simulations “suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.” He added: “Although this policy could be monitored over time to avoid such an outcome, changes would likely result in smaller actual savings than described here for these provisions.”[/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Rick I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I want you to tell me how reducing the deficit and balancing the budget will create jobs? Serious question.

I think it's the other way around my friend, creating jobs and getting more people back into the workforce will reduce the deficit and balance the budget, because youll have more people to tax to do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349358239' post='1166143']
Also Rick I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I want you to tell me how reducing the deficit and balancing the budget will create jobs? Serious question.

I think it's the other way around my friend, creating jobs and getting more people back into the workforce will reduce the deficit and balance the budget, because youll have more people to tax to do it.
[/quote]

Won't that depend on how big of a tax break the large companies get in order to build plants and bring jobs back to the U.S.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349358872' post='1166146']
Won't that depend on how big of a tax break the large companies get in order to build plants and bring jobs back to the U.S.?
[/quote]


What creates the demand here in the US to bring those jobs back? Who are their customers to put jobs here? What incentives do they have to bring jobs back here when they can pay workers in China much much much cheaper rates? Do we really expect the American worker to compete with Chinese "sweatshop" type of wages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349359180' post='1166149']
What creates the demand here in the US to bring those jobs back? Who are their customers to put jobs here? What incentives do they have to bring jobs back here when they can pay workers in China much much much cheaper rates? Do we really expect the American worker to compete with Chinese "sweatshop" type of wages?
[/quote]

The answer to some of your questions is quite simple. In order for the U.S. to create more jobs here in the U.S. is to make it less profitable and more difficult for companies to produce goods abroad and then ship them back into the country for sale. If the government raises tariffs and taxes on imported goods it cuts into the companies profit margin. Eventually the gape between the break even point of a product produced and shipped into the U.S. becomes so close to the profit of just producing the product in the U.S. that they give in. Oddly enough some foreign companies have realized a production strategy that has out matched a lot of U.S. companies. Or maybe it isn't so odd at all. Companies like Toyota, Pioneer, and Honda have manufacturers inside and outside the U.S., and they try to balance the amount of production to meet the needs of the consumer in each area, avoiding shipping the products as much as possible. Sadly U.S. companies like GM and Ford pride themselves on being a U.S. made product and don't worry as much on secondary markets. There was an article recently on yahoo that listed American made cars not available for sale in the U.S. It was quite interesting, but if I was an outsider, I would wonder why I had to be sold a car that wasn't 'good' enough to be sold in the U.S.One other factory to take into account is the poor U.S. strategy of flaunting that something is American made. That actually hinders their sales in other markets around the world, versus companies that might be owned outside the U.S., point to the fact that, no, they aren't American owned, but they are American made by the same kind of people that might be your neighbor or Joe Blow down the street. It's actually sad to see a country with a free enterprise country be so mismanaged by people making millions and billions of dollars.

Sorry most of my examples were using car companies, but those are the easiest ones to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1349359180' post='1166149']
What creates the demand here in the US to bring those jobs back? Who are their customers to put jobs here? What incentives do they have to bring jobs back here when they can pay workers in China much much much cheaper rates? Do we really expect the American worker to compete with Chinese "sweatshop" type of wages?
[/quote]

We've had this debate before, but in the case of China, the primary incentives are not cheap labor; they are below-market loans, land grants, preferential tax treatment, and other favors that both Romney and Obama lump into the category of "cheating". Add to that the fact that China artificially devalues its currency to boost exports and you have a portrait of how extreme policy can go to incentivize business activity. It's telling that both candidates explicitly stated that they want to lower the corporate tax rate. These Chinese policies directly target core U.S. industries.

This is a pretty good overview of the situation:

[url="http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/01/its_not_bashing_if_its_true"]http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/01/its_not_bashing_if_its_true[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the area I live, one of the controversial subjects, is that foreigners can get low or even 0% loans to open businesses or buy existing businesses. This is in contrast to the opportunities afforded to American citizens who most of the time have to get private loans to do the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1349360313' post='1166154']


The answer to some of your questions is quite simple. In order for the U.S. to create more jobs here in the U.S. is to make it less profitable and more difficult for companies to produce goods abroad and then ship them back into the country for sale. If the government raises tariffs and taxes on imported goods it cuts into the companies profit margin. Eventually the gape between the break even point of a product produced and shipped into the U.S. becomes so close to the profit of just producing the product in the U.S. that they give in. Oddly enough some foreign companies have realized a production strategy that has out matched a lot of U.S. companies. Or maybe it isn't so odd at all. Companies like Toyota, Pioneer, and Honda have manufacturers inside and outside the U.S., and they try to balance the amount of production to meet the needs of the consumer in each area, avoiding shipping the products as much as possible. Sadly U.S. companies like GM and Ford pride themselves on being a U.S. made product and don't worry as much on secondary markets. There was an article recently on yahoo that listed American made cars not available for sale in the U.S. It was quite interesting, but if I was an outsider, I would wonder why I had to be sold a car that wasn't 'good' enough to be sold in the U.S.One other factory to take into account is the poor U.S. strategy of flaunting that something is American made. That actually hinders their sales in other markets around the world, versus companies that might be owned outside the U.S., point to the fact that, no, they aren't American owned, but they are American made by the same kind of people that might be your neighbor or Joe Blow down the street. It's actually sad to see a country with a free enterprise country be so mismanaged by people making millions and billions of dollars.

Sorry most of my examples were using car companies, but those are the easiest ones to understand.
[/quote]

Actually I agree with you about tariffs and have many times talked about my disagreement with fair trade. But thats apples and oranges. I asked about taxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1349356369' post='1166133']
I couldn't believe Obama and his advisers basically "pulled him back"... his greatest asset is his oratory skills and he looked 1 of 3 things: unprepared, just doesn't want to win the election, or someone in the networks told him he's winning by too much and we need to build suspense so throw off... I say those things mostly in jest. I was just really disappointed in Obama's performance last night - he got curb stopped.

Romney came out on the attack and made Obama his bitch last night. [b]I expect a more fiery Obama in future debates[/b]. i certainly hope so anyway.

As for content... their mouths were moving so you know they were lying. Just really disappointed that Obama didn't look more in control and put together more coherent points. Dude... you were getting punked and just took it.
[/quote]

I keep thinking that Obama needs to stop messing around and slam the door shut on the election. It really seems like he is holding back to make things closer. I don't want a good game, give me a shutout!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1349362395' post='1166167']


We've had this debate before, but in the case of China, the primary incentives are not cheap labor; they are below-market loans, land grants, preferential tax treatment, and other favors that both Romney and Obama lump into the category of "cheating". Add to that the fact that China artificially devalues its currency to boost exports and you have a portrait of how extreme policy can go to incentivize business activity. It's telling that both candidates explicitly stated that they want to lower the corporate tax rate. These Chinese policies directly target core U.S. industries.

This is a pretty good overview of the situation:

[url="http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/01/its_not_bashing_if_its_true"]http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/01/its_not_bashing_if_its_true[/url]
[/quote]

Yes we have gone over it before and both then and now you fail to address the notion that there is no incentive to invest without customers to buy products.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well honestly it comes down to giving incentive for companies to move their production of products and services into a down winding market. At what point does the reward outweigh the risk? With the way real estate and sales have been in the U.S., it's going to take some massive promises in order to convince these companies that are on the fence.

Yes there is the argument that unless money is pumped into the market through labor, citizens won't have the money to buy goods and services. That seems simple, but there is a catch. What company do you know of that is happy with an even flow chart? None. Companies are in business to make money not break even. So how can a business create jobs, build sales, and make money?

That's actually the downfall of free trade and capitalism comes in. The only way for one company to be successful is if one or more other business fail. So to really answer your question, the U.S. and it's companies have to win not only at home, but abroad. I think you already know where I am going with this. The unions, labor costs, and federal standards make it difficult for U.S. business to compete internationally.

My answer to the economy really doesn't have as much to do with taxes, but putting harder constraints on businesses that ship goods into the U.S. Not only is it important to be tough with tariffs, but the U.S. needs to develop rules that goods brought into the U.S. have to follow not only quality standards that are the same applied to U.S. made goods, but that the companies they come from meet the same standards that are enforced on American factories. If the companies don't like it, then they don't have to sell their products here. Eventually they will have to collapse under the pressure and more than likely start building things in the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...