Debates

[Jamie_B]

CNN poll

46 - Obama

39 - Romney

[bengalrick]

[url="http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/"]http://freebeacon.co...y-he-was-right/[/url]


[color=#3E3D3D][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][background=rgb(245, 245, 245)]CNN host and debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.[/background][/font][/color]

[sois]

It was awesome watching two dudes dance around questions for an hour. Those dudes have moves like Jagger.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350445193' post='1171459']
Also since Lew and Rick brought it up.

He said about Clinton taking responsibility for it, "I am the president, she works for me"
[/quote]

It sounds like the White House is playing a game about Libya. At first no one wanted to except the blame, and the attack was random. Now multiple people are taking the blame. WTF, it reminds of some kind of movie where everyone stands up to take the blame, so that in the end no one knows who's fault it really is. Someone need to make some Benny Hill or Three Stoogies clip about this.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350446883' post='1171467']
[url="http://freebeacon.com/candy-crowley-he-was-right/"]http://freebeacon.co...y-he-was-right/[/url]


[color=#3E3D3D][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][background=rgb(245, 245, 245)]CNN host and debate moderator Candy Crowley said Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” but “picked the wrong word” on the Obama administration’s immediate response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.[/background][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Obama did what you said he should do. He took responsibility.

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350461366' post='1171474']
It sounds like the White House is playing a game about Libya. At first no one wanted to except the blame, and the attack was random. Now multiple people are taking the blame. WTF, it reminds of some kind of movie where everyone stands up to take the blame, so that in the end no one knows who's fault it really is. Someone need to make some Benny Hill or Three Stoogies clip about this.
[/quote]

No Obama was pretty clear. He said he is the President it falls on him, dont be mad because he did what you guys were trying to say he wasnt doing.

[Jamie_B]

[img]http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/o/4/clinton-binder-of-women.jpg[/img]

[Vol_Bengal]

Couple things...

1) was nice to see Obama stand up and have a little punch. Loved the give and take over different things.

2) Romney could have absolutely blistered Obama on Libya if he'd use the correct word. His premise was accurate he worded it wrong. A lot of nuance in Obama's Rose Garden statement; "acts of terror" followed for almost 2 weeks of "its about a video", which Crowley states Romney was correct about, leaves one to assume the admin was going the blame the video route (Obama was on Letterman blaming the whole video deal 5 days after the Rose Garden statement). I liked Obama's stern "to suggest we'd use it for political gain I take exception with"... that was smart. He's full of shit but it was smart to try and paint it that way to the public.

3) I give credit to Obama for finally having some backbone and saying "the buck stops with me"... last night was the first time he'd done that. Well done.

4) I thought Romney killed Obama on energy... "when you came into office gas was $1.50 a gallon, it is now $4.00 a gallon. How can our energy policy be improving?" And, Obama's answer is that we were hitting a recession so gas prices were down? Huh? That was the biggest joke of an answer I've ever seen. Gas prices have gone up ~265%... I'm quite certain our economy hasn't grown at that rate... in fact median household income has declined several thousand dollars in that time. So, again, why has gas shot up so much?

5) I liked the punch / counter punch on pensions... Obama blisters Romney for being invested in Chinese companies, Romney asks Obama if he's looked at his own pension to which Obama says mines not as big as your, etc., and Romney then states Obama's pension is invested in Chinese companies as well and he might want to look at it.

6) in the end, voters are having to make a choice - continue 4 more years of proven failed policy and mounting debt, or "in the cloud promises" without any substantive "hows", and change. (sound familiar?) You know what you have in Obama which isn't much. Romney is selling you on "I've balanced budgets my whole life - in the business world, for the State of Massachusetts", "what actual shape a tax percentage cut will take I don't know until I get into office and reach across the aisle for bipartisan support and build the policy, etc." blah, blah, blah.

7) I thought each made good points and arguments but what I didn't care for was that they'd tell the person how great a question it was and then QUICKLY circle back to talking points about that subject without really answering the question at all. In the end I felt like it was about a draw from a debate standpoint... who does that favor? I don't know. Some say challenger (since incumbent should be stronger), some say incumbent (since challenger has to score victories to sway people from the status quo). Again, don't know who really "won" this one as I felt each took some and gave some.

Next week's should be really good - would love another town hall style where they can circle around each other like caged lions ready to pounce!!!

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350475025' post='1171486']
[img]http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/o/4/clinton-binder-of-women.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Well played!

Saw a tweet last night when the question of women in the workforce, equality, etc. came up and someone said Obama should channel is inner Clinton and tell them exactly how Clinton thinks women should perform in the workplace! Thought it was hysterical!

[bengalrick]

I wasn't happy that Romney didn't get to make his last point when on the economy about how he was going to cut taxes on all but the wealthy and how he was going to do that. That is very important and was called out numberous times how the numbers don't work.

It is a brilliant idea imo... Cap the amount of deductions at around 25,000. That way, there is no way that that millionaires can pay less tax percentage than the middle class.

[Homer_Rice]

Vol: Great question re gas prices. Why have they gone up so much in the past few years? Add on question: to what extent is any admin responsible for price fluctuations?

For the latter, I would suggest that an admin is responsible for refereeing the "playing field" (i.e. the marketplace.) So, in this sense, I do blame the Obama admin because they have done such an atrocious job of regulating the speculation on Wall Street. Thus, what I (and many so-called "lefties") would see as a potential solution to the speculation on the spot market, etc... would not even come close, philosophically or policy-wise, with what is associated with solutions suggested by the Romney campaign. The which, imo, would be more of the same stuff what got us here in the first place.

Likewise, BR, be careful of the sleight of hand regarding the 25,000 deduction business. Because, unless I'm mistaken, that does not address the area of greatest inequality in the tax system--capital gains and carried interest. Wool, meet eyes. That said, until I hear the Obama admin begin talking about a Tobin tax and increases in capital gains taxes, etc... I can't take all the rhetoric about leveling the playing field seriously.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350478721' post='1171502']
Likewise, BR, be careful of the sleight of hand regarding the 25,000 deduction business. Because, unless I'm mistaken, that does not address the area of greatest inequality in the tax system--capital gains and carried interest. Wool, meet eyes. That said, until I hear the Obama admin begin talking about a Tobin tax and increases in capital gains taxes, etc... I can't take all the rhetoric about leveling the playing field seriously.
[/quote]

Point taken... I hear that response and think 'that sounds too easy.' Economics is so freaking hard to understand, at least for me. I originally went to college as as Business Administration and around the time I was taking macroeconomics I couldn't stay awake any more. Just isn't my thing.

But on the surface it seems like a step in the right direction. Using this as a platform, what suggestions would you have to sure up the deduction and tax code?

[bengalrick]

MSNBC undecided voters swaying toward Romney? :
[url="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html"]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html[/url]

I dismissed the fox news panel for the sake of not having to hear "faux news... blah, blah, blah" but they had a similar video done here:
[url="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html"]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html[/url]

[Orange 'n Black]

Why would you want to raise capital gains taxes? Merely to "level the playing field", or is there a real economic justification?

True, capital gains taxes disproportionately favor wealthy business owners. But so what? Low capital gains taxes encourage growth in all areas of business.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350476884' post='1171495']
I wasn't happy that Romney didn't get to make his last point when on the economy about how he was going to cut taxes on all but the wealthy and how he was going to do that. That is very important and was called out numberous times how the numbers don't work.

It is a brilliant idea imo... Cap the amount of deductions at around 25,000. That way, there is no way that that millionaires can pay less tax percentage than the middle class.
[/quote]


He said he was going to cut 20% for everyone then said he wasnt going to cut for the top 2% IN THE SAME DEBATE.

This guy will say anything.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350478721' post='1171502']
Likewise, BR, be careful of the sleight of hand regarding the 25,000 deduction business. Because, unless I'm mistaken, that does not address the area of greatest inequality in the tax system--capital gains and carried interest. Wool, meet eyes. That said, until I hear the Obama admin begin talking about a Tobin tax and increases in capital gains taxes, etc... I can't take all the rhetoric about leveling the playing field seriously.
[/quote]

I agree with this to an extent... you're not getting anything substantive from Romney regarding the tax system just more broad outlines.

That is why I made point #6 above - in the end, voters are having to make a choice - continue 4 more years of proven failed policy and mounting debt, or "in the cloud promises" without any substantive "hows", and change. (sound familiar?) You know what you have in Obama which isn't much. Romney is selling you on "I've balanced budgets my whole life - in the business world, for the State of Massachusetts", "what actual shape a tax percentage cut will take I don't know until I get into office and reach across the aisle for bipartisan support and build the policy, etc." blah, blah, blah.

The voter will have to decide if the known devil is better than the unknown or are we making change for changes sake.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350483029' post='1171516']
He said he was going to cut 20% for everyone then said he wasnt going to cut for the top 2% IN THE SAME DEBATE.

This guy will say anything.
[/quote]

He said the SHARE paid by the top 2% would not be reduced.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350483029' post='1171516']
He said he was going to cut 20% for everyone then said he wasnt going to cut for the top 2% IN THE SAME DEBATE.

This guy will say anything.
[/quote]

That isn't what I heard at all... I heard him to say that the top 2% would still pay the 60% of the tax burden that they're paying now. While the middle class would pay a lesser tax burden. Again - in practice can it be done? I don't know. But, alluding to Homer, if putting a cap on deductions will cause that top 2% to pay at a more respectable rate then that is a start.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350483440' post='1171522']
That isn't what I heard at all... I heard him to say that the top 2% would still pay the 60% of the tax burden that they're paying now. While the middle class would pay a lesser tax burden. Again - in practice can it be done? I don't know. But, alluding to Homer, if putting a cap on deductions will cause that top 2% to pay at a more respectable rate then that is a start.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlfxClZCaDw&feature=relmfu

This is from a different debate, but how can anyone know what this guy is going to actually do? He's all over the map.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350483324' post='1171520']
He said the SHARE paid by the top 2% would not be reduced.
[/quote]

How can anyone be sure? He isnt saying which deductions he wants to get rid of so that people can run the numbers to see.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350483018' post='1171515']
Why would you want to raise capital gains taxes? Merely to "level the playing field", or is there a real economic justification?

True, capital gains taxes disproportionately favor wealthy business owners. But so what? Low capital gains taxes encourage growth in all areas of business.
[/quote]

Customers having money to buy products are what encourages grown in all areas of business.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350483440' post='1171522']
That isn't what I heard at all... I heard him to say that the top 2% would still pay the 60% of the tax burden that they're paying now. While the middle class would pay a lesser tax burden. Again - in practice can it be done? I don't know. But, alluding to Homer, if putting a cap on deductions will cause that top 2% to pay at a more respectable rate then that is a start.
[/quote]

His plan depends entirely on expanding the middle class. If that base doesn't grow, then the Romney plan is mathematically infeasible. If he does go through with capping deductions, it would likely increase the share paid by the top 2%. One of the ways Romney and many others can drive down their tax rates is by making large charitable donations, so if that deduction is capped, the money moves from charity to the government. No net change to the 2% as far as giving money.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350484082' post='1171528']
Customers having money to buy products are what encourages grown in all areas of business.
[/quote]

So the solution is to limit the growth of those businesses by raising taxes? Growth creates jobs, jobs give people money.

[Jamie_B]

[b] [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/"]http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/[/url][/b]



[quote]

[b] FactChecking the Hofstra Debate[/b]

Obama and Romney continue false, misleading attacks in second debate.



[b] [color=#800000][background=transparent]Summary[/background][/color][/b]
[color=#333333]
The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.[/color][list]
[*]Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
[*]Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
[*]Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
[*]Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
[*]Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
[*]Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
[*]Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
[*]Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.
[/list][color=#333333]
Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.[/color][color=#333333]
For full details on these and other claims in this spin-filled debate, along with links to original sources and full source citations, please read on to our Analysis section.[/color]
[b] [color=#800000][background=transparent]Analysis[/background][/color][/b]
[color=#333333]
The [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/us/politics/transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate-in-hempstead-ny.html?pagewanted=all"]second debate[/url] between President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was held at Hofstra University on New York’s Long Island. It was a town-meeting affair in which both candidates frequently interrupted and contradicted each other.[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Terrorist Attack in Libya[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
There was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”[/color][color=#333333]
Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Obama[/b]: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …[/background][background=transparent]
[b]Romney[/b]: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?[/background][background=transparent]
[b]Obama[/b]: Please proceed governor.[/background][background=transparent]
[b]Romney[/b]: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.[/background][background=transparent]
[b]Obama[/b]: Get the transcript.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
The [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya"]transcript[/url] does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “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.” That night, he said at a [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-las-vegas-nv"]Las Vegas fundraiser[/url]: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”[/color][color=#333333]
But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.[/color][color=#333333]
The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”[/color][color=#333333]
It is also true that Obama, after the Rose Garden speech and Las Vegas event the same day, refrained from characterizing the attack as an act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a [url="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/09/197821.htm"]Sept. 17 press briefing[/url] if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”[/color][color=#333333]
Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack even after others in the administration said it was.[/color][color=#333333]
Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, [url="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/obama_official_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack"]testified[/url] on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”[/color][color=#333333]
A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney [url="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/20/the_white_house_s_benghazi_problem"]said[/url] it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”[/color][color=#333333]
Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. He [url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html"]said[/url], “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”[/color][color=#333333]
The Romney campaign has [url="http://builtbyus.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/10/romney-campaign-american-people-deserve-straight-answers"]accused[/url] the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admiting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as [url="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/01/opposing-view-on-us-embassy-security/1607505/"]the administration says[/url], the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]A ‘Model’ Law?[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Obama said that Romney called Arizona’s 2010 immigration enforcement law “a model for the nation.” But Romney was referring to an employment verification law enacted three years earlier.[/color][color=#333333]
At a [url="http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.05.html"]GOP presidential primary debate in February[/url], Romney said: “You know, I think you see a model in Arizona. They passed a law here that says — that says that people who come here and try and find work, that the employer is required to look them up on E-Verify. This E-Verify system allows employers in Arizona to know who’s here legally and who’s not here legally.”[/color][color=#333333]
Arizona’s [url="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2779c.pdf"]Fair and Legal Employment Act[/url], which was [url="http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2779&Session_ID=85"]signed in 2007[/url], requires Arizona employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check the employment eligibility of the workers they employ, and penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers.[/color][color=#333333]
Some [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-arizona-immigration-law-a-model/2012/02/23/gIQA8ULZVR_blog.html"]interpreted[/url] [url="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/22/news/la-pn-gop-debate-illegal-immigration-20120222"]Romney’s remarks[/url] at the February debate as saying that Arizona’s 2010 immigration enforcement law was a “model” for the country. But as the full context of his remarks show — and as [url="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/03/01/20120301romney-immigration-nowicki.html?nclick_check=1"]his campaign later clarified[/url] — Romney was specifically referring to the state’s employment verification process, not the state’s 2010 immigration law.[/color][color=#333333]
Obama also said that Romney’s “top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed” the 2010 immigration law. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft Arizona’s immigration law, has [url="http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Kobach_Confirms_Hes_Unpaid_Adviser_For_Romney_138539334.html"]said that he is an “unpaid adviser”[/url] on immigration policy for the Romney campaign. But there is no indication that he is the campaign’s “top adviser,” as Obama said.[/color][color=#333333]
[b][size=1][background=transparent]‘Imaginary’ Wind-Power Jobs[/background][/size][/b][/color][color=#333333]
Obama lifted a Romney quote about wind energy out of context in an attempt to draw a sharper contrast between himself and Romney on renewable energy. Romney didn’t call wind energy “imaginary,” as Obama claimed. Rather, Romney said that wind and solar cannot “power the economy.” Romney contested Obama’s characterization during the debate.[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Obama[/b]: So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says these are imaginary jobs, when you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator … in Iowa is all for it.[/background][background=transparent]
[b]Romney[/b]: I don’t have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they’re not phantom jobs. They’re real jobs. I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
Romney opposes the extension of wind production tax credits (though he [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-energy-plan-shows-changing-views-draws-questions-about-job-claims/2012/06/08/gJQAnPANOV_print.html"]does support[/url] funding for basic research into cleaner energy technology, including wind). But Romney didn’t call wind energy jobs “imaginary.”[/color][color=#333333]
Here’s what Romney penned in an [url="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/03/05/u-s--can-be-energy-superpower.html"]op-ed[/url] for the [i]Columbus Dispatch[/i] on March 5, 2012:[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Romney, March 5, 2012[/b]: In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
Romney’s point was that wind and solar cannot “power the economy,” and that’s correct. In fact, [i]all[/i]renewable energy (including hydro power and biofuels) accounted for [url="http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/major_energy_sources_and_users.cfm"]9 percent of the nation’s energy consumption in 2011[/url]. And while wind [url="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_01_a"]generation has doubled[/url] since 2008, it still only accounted for [url="http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351203.pdf"]13 percent[/url] of all renewable energy generated in 2011. That’s still a very small fraction of the nation’s overall energy supply.[/color][color=#333333]
A Romney campaign [url="http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper_8.23.pdf"]white paper on energy[/url] lambasted “subsidies for an uncompetitive technology to survive in the market” that would be better served by “eliminating any barriers that might prevent the best technologies from succeeding on their own.” Obama, on the other hand, has been a vocal proponent of tax credits to help the wind and solar industries. In short, there are clear policy differences between Obama and Romney on wind and solar issues, but Obama went too far with his claim that Romney called wind energy jobs “imaginary.”[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Cutting Taxes for the Wealthy[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney said that “I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now” under his tax plan. But that’s not what he said earlier, as Obama correctly noted.[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Obama:[/b] [D]uring a Republican primary, he stood onstage and said, I’m going to give tax cuts — he didn’t say tax rate cuts; he said tax cuts — to everybody, including the top 1 percent, you should believe him, because that’s been his history.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
Romney pushed back, explaining that “I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people.” But his remarks this time were different in tone and substance than what he said before, as the president suggested.[/color][color=#333333]
Obama was referring to an [url="http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.05.html"]exchange[/url] during a Republican primary debate, when Rick Santorum charged that Romney “suggested raising taxes on the top 1 percent.” Romney countered:[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Romney, Feb 22, 2012:[/b] I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]$4,000 in Higher Taxes on Middle Class?[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney was wrong when he said “the middle class will see $4,000 per year in higher taxes” as a result of Obama’s fiscal policies. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative group that did the study cited by Romney, calculated the [i]potential[/i] impact on different income groups if the U.S. raised taxes to service the national debt. Obama is not planning to raise taxes on the middle class to service the debt any more than Romney says he is.[/color][color=#333333]
In its study, AEI calculated the increase in the federal debt under three budget scenarios — including the president’s fiscal year 2013 budget — and then determined the tax burden on 11 income groups if the debt was serviced solely by raising taxes. The other budget scenarios were “current law,” which among other things assumes the Bush-era tax cuts expire for everyone as scheduled at the end of the year, and “current policy,” which assumes the extension of current policies through 2013 — including the Bush tax cuts.[/color][color=#333333]
The study itself said Obama’s budget “provides a middle ground between these two extremes.” An AEI blogger wrote an [url="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/study-obamas-big-budget-deficits-could-mean-a-4000-a-year-middle-class-tax-hike/"]Oct. 2 post[/url] that said Obama’s “budget deficits could mean a $4,000 a year middle-class tax hike.” That’s the source of Romney’s claim. The blogger arrives at that figure by combining the potential tax burden already accrued under Obama with the potential tax burden over the next 10 years.[/color][color=#333333]
But, as we noted when we [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-4000-tax-tale/"]first wrote about this[/url], the national debt will continue to rise regardless of who becomes the next president. By Romney’s logic, the House budget resolution crafted by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, will “raise taxes” on the middle class by $2,732 over that same period of time through serving the debt accrued in Obama’s first term and the amount that would accrue under Ryan’s budget.[/color][color=#333333]
For more on this, please see “[url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-4000-tax-tale/"]Romney’s $4,000 Tax Tale[/url].”[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Romney Wrong on Women’s Jobs[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney used a bloated and incorrect figure for the net loss of women’s jobs during Obama’s term.[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Romney:[/b] In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
Actually, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the net loss of women’s jobs since January 2009, when the president took office, is 283,000.[/color][color=#333333]
Even the 283,000 figure is an overstatement. The BLS also has announced that its routine annual benchmarking process will result next year in [url="http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesprelbmk.htm"]adding 386,000 total jobs[/url] — men and women — to the official historical figures. It did not say how many of those would be women’s jobs, but about [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t21.htm"]49 percent of total employment[/url] is currently accounted for by women. So about 190,000 will probably be subtracted from the 283,000 figure. That would put the current loss at 93,000, making Romney’s figure six times too high.[/color][color=#333333]
We assume Romney’s reference to “four years” was meant to cover only Obama’s term. For the record, the number of women’s jobs lost in the last four months of the Bush administration was 833,000, according to the BLS. So the total over four years would come to 1.1 million, with the large majority lost before Obama was sworn in.[/color][color=#333333]
Romney may simply have failed to update a shopworn talking point to reflect current reality. Both men and women have gained jobs steadily in recent months. Also, in May the [url="http://www.bls.gov/bls/ceswomen_usps_correction.htm"]BLS announced it had corrected figures for women’s jobs[/url] after discovering it had failed to count 64,000 female employees of the U.S. Postal Service for several years due to a data processing error.[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Same rates?[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Obama repeated his claim that he’d put tax rates on the affluent no higher than they had been under President Clinton.[/color][indent][background=transparent]
[b]Obama:[/b] [F]or above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. We created 23 million new jobs.[/background][/indent][color=#333333]
That’s true only for federal income tax rates, which Obama would restore to pre-Bush levels for family income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals.) But, as [url="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/"]we’ve noted before[/url], Obama already has enacted new taxes that also will fall on those same taxpayers. For those high-income persons, the new health care law contains a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, and a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax surcharge on wages and salaries exceeding those thresholds.[/color][color=#333333]
As a result many, if not most, high-income persons will pay more in federal taxes under Obama’s proposed rates than they did under Clinton.[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Auto Bailouts and Bankruptcy[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Obama claimed that Romney “said we should let Detroit go bankrupt,” while Romney countered that “the president took Detroit bankrupt. … That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.” There’s some truth and misleading bits on both sides here.[/color][color=#333333]
Romney wrote a [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0"]Nov. 18, 2008, op-ed[/url], published in the [i]New York Times[/i], that carried the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” He argued against a bailout but for a “managed bankruptcy” in which he said that the “federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”[/color][color=#333333]
The automakers did go through a managed bankruptcy but not exactly the way Romney proposed. Obama provided loans and made equity investments in General Motors and Chrysler. Both President George W. Bush and Obama used federal funds through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). GM and Chrylser got [url="http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/briefing-room/reports/tarp-daily-summary-report/TARP%20Cash%20Summary/Daily%20TARP%20Update%20-%2007.25.2012.pdf"]$80 billion[/url], and nearly $41 billion has been repaid. Obama required the car companies to come up with reorganization plans as a condition for receiving the federal aid.[/color][color=#333333]
A [url="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41978.pdf"]Congressional Research Service report[/url] on the restructuring of GM published in September concluded that “[w]ithout the U.S. government assistance, GM would not have been able to pay creditors, suppliers, or workers and would most likely have entered bankruptcy earlier with a less certain outcome.” It said that government support enabled an orderly reorganization and “may have reduced collateral damage to many auto suppliers and some of the other automakers who buy parts from them,” but it also “exposed the U.S. government to risk that not all the assistance would be recovered.”[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Growing Pell Grants?[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney said, “I want to make sure we keep our Pell — Pell Grant program growing.” Some voters may have been confused by that statement, since both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have indicated they would limit eligibility for the program. Ryan has also said he would keep the maximum award exactly where it is. But at a University of Miami forum in late September, Romney said he would favor having the college grant increase somewhat, with the rate of inflation.[/color][color=#333333]
In a [url="http://www.scribd.com/doc/94576248/A-Chance-for-Every-Child"]position paper on education[/url] published in May, Romney said he would “refocus Pell Grant dollars on the students that need them most and place the program on a responsible long-term path that avoids future funding cliffs and last-minute funding patches.” Ryan, too, proposed in [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/factchecking-the-hofstra-debate/(http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf"]his budget plan[/url] “limiting the growth of financial aid and focusing it on low-income students who need it the most.”[/color][color=#333333]
In April, Ryan [url="https://www.facebook.com/notes/paul-ryan/the-presidents-speech-distorts-the-truth-to-distract-from-his-failed-record/10150791420832448"]said[/url] his plan “maintains the maximum Pell award of $5,550.” So, he’d keep the [url="http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/grants-scholarships/pell"]same level of funding[/url] for students who received Pell Grants, but he’d limit eligibility.[/color][color=#333333]
But at a Sept. 19 forum for college students at the University of Miami, Romney [url="http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/romney-talks-education-gay-marriage-meet-candidate-event/story?id=17280340#.UH4rF651vAx"]said[/url], “My inclination would be to have them go with the rate of inflation.”[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Gasoline Prices Up $2,000?[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney made the misleading claim that “gasoline prices have gone up $2,000.” He’s making a claim about the average price of gasoline per year per household, not per vehicle.[/color][color=#333333]
To get there, Romney took the increase in the average national price of regular gasoline since January 2009 (about $2, according to the [url="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m"]Energy Information Administration[/url]) and multiplied it by the average number of gallons consumed per vehicle (678 in 2010, according to the [url="http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html"]Bureau of Transportation Statistics[/url]) and the average number of vehicles per household (1.92 in 2009, according to the[url="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw618.html"]Department of Energy[/url]).[/color][color=#333333]
But the $2,000 figure is greatly inflated because gasoline prices were much higher during most of 2008 than they were at the moment Obama was sworn in. They were temporarily depressed by the world recession, and the yearly cost per family was much higher for all of 2008 than the figure Romney uses as his base. During 2008 prices hit over $4.10 per gallon, and have never been that high since. The most recent monthly average was $3.91.[/color][color=#333333]
[size=1][background=transparent][b]Romney Repeats[/b][/background][/size][/color][color=#333333]
Romney repeated a few other old claims that we’ve checked before:[/color][list]
[*]He said Obama “doubled” the deficit. Romney is wrong. Obama inherited a projected $1.2 trillion deficit when he took office, as we [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/"]wrote[/url] after the last debate. The government actually ended up with a [url="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-9-09mbr.pdf"]$1.4 trillion deficit[/url] that year — a record. And deficits have remained high since then. It’s true that Obama hasn’t delivered on his 2009 State of the Union address promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. CBO [url="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf"]estimates[/url] the president’s latest budget plan would drop the deficit to $702 billion in fiscal 2014 and $539 billion in fiscal 2015.
[*]Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to an oil pipeline from Canada, which isn’t entirely accurate. In fact, no final decision has been made on the cross-border Keystone XL pipeline project, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta, in Canada to Steele City, Neb. The [url="http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html"]TransCanada pipeline company says[/url] it will submit a new application soon and anticipates quick approval of the project “in the first quarter of 2013, after which construction will quickly begin.” The [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/10/statement-president-state-departments-keystone-xl-pipeline-announcement"]Obama administration denied[/url]TransCanada’s original route in November 2011 because of concerns that it would pass through the[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/politics/administration-to-delay-pipeline-decision-past-12-election.html?ref=keystonepipeline"]ecologically sensitive Sandhills[/url] area of Nebraska.
[*]Romney said health insurance premiums had gone up by $2,500. [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/"]Not true.[/url] The average premium for a family employer-based policy has gone up $1,975 between 2010 and 2012, according to an annual survey of employer plans by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. That’s the total increase for both employers and employees. And Kaiser’s 2011 and 2012 reports said that the amount paid by employees hadn’t changed much.
[*]Romney claimed, as he has in many [url="http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/"]stump speeches[/url], that Obama “said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent.” Romney is referring to a speculative report issued at the beginning of Obama’s presidency containing projections — not promises — about how the stimulus would affect the economy. Those projections relied on prevailing economic models that quickly proved to have underestimated the depths of the recession at that time.
[/list]

[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350484270' post='1171530']
So the solution is to limit the growth of those businesses by raising taxes? Growth creates jobs, jobs give people money.
[/quote]

Taxes on business are largely irrelevant, growth happens when there is more demand in the market, you cant have demand in the market if there is nobody to buy.

I would say we're in a liquidity trap, but a good number of folks dont even have money to be saving to put us in one.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350480636' post='1171505']
Point taken... I hear that response and think 'that sounds too easy.' Economics is so freaking hard to understand, at least for me. I originally went to college as as Business Administration and around the time I was taking macroeconomics I couldn't stay awake any more. Just isn't my thing.

But on the surface it seems like a step in the right direction. Using this as a platform, what suggestions would you have to sure up the deduction and tax code?
[/quote]

My answer is this: I have a 5 part plan to make a better tax code. Trust me.

Economics can be hard but that is mostly because there is so much crap that gets in the way of understanding. Lots of competing theories, etc... But in reality, the fundamentals of economics are pretty simple, if dull. I've mentioned some of those basics a number of times in the past, but here is the essence: How does one reproduce the material needs of a society in such a way that profit/surplus/value added increases at the same time that living standards increase, too? That idea, or a more fleshed out version of this snippet, should be at the core any any layman's understanding of economic practices. Once one is rock-solid on that notion, then it becomes easier to review and assess the multiplicity of ways in which various components of the economy either enhance or detract from that basic truth.

[url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html"]I think that this article will be helpful a tangential way[/url] as it touches upon some of this. Mostly it is a critical view of Romney which reads like Beelzebub damning the Devil, because David Stockman is the fellow who helped bring all this trickle-down nonsense into popularity. He has apparently seen the light--or at least the blinders are off-- and his commentary is well-worth thinking about. In many ways he hits the nail on the head. And again, this is commentary from a fellow who is an insider and more importantly, a fellow traveler in the financial crowd.