THE Debate?

The debate as just ended. Your intrepid (I flatter myself, but; what the hell?) commentator offers you his thoughts in advance of exposure to spin.

Both candidates landed a few jabs. Both candidates had some good lines; ‘trickle down government’’; “Secret plan ? Because their too good”?

But you have to keep in mind; there are those of us who pay ongoing attention to politics, day to day. There are those who are getting their initial serious exposure. Those folks actually call the shots. How did it appear to them? Hell, I don’t know, I pay attention nearly every day; until I just can’t take it anymore. I can only offer an educated guess. What I do know is the campaigns have data on exactly this issue, or they should.

In the final strategic analysis, aforementioned issues considered, Obama did not improve his position and Romney did not hurt his. That results in the judgment here of a win for Romney…….narrowly on some issues, dramatically on others. I expected some ‘bomb’ dropped on Mr. Romney from the President, but it never happened. Come on guys; October! Where is my surprise?

Romney was clearly not intimidated by the President and the President demonstrated a bit of frustration at being challenged. Subtle! Honest people will disagree, Geeks will argue. No problem, it’s not we here in GeekDome that will call the election. We’re part of the solid 46% on either side.

It was somewhat spirited in parts, and exceptionally sleepy in others. Romney did a better job of defining the overarching philosophical point of view. This is what Conservatives wanted, yes? Bold colors! The President could not resist the ‘weeds of policy and process’ and Romney followed him there too often; but often enough to demonstrate a level of expertise. Some of the, ‘new folks to the process’ probably wanted to go sleepy at some points of the debate, I know I did!

The economic growth position was given effective voice by Romney, it was, however, early in the proceedings.

Debate coaches will tell you that the President’s repititon of refuted points was a significant points deduction.

My bottom line is, if this were a football game, Romney 24, Obama 14.

  • I know what the Conservative spin will be; Romney won, President unprepared or unable to justify record. Rachael Maddow is also upset. She asks David Plouffe why the President did not attack Romney Rachel is NOT happy. But, she accepts Mr. Plouffe’s explanation; “we were trying to tell a story”. Look for that in a political ad near you.

    Interesting that according to Howard Fineman the Romney folks could not wait to get into thein room. The President’s folks ; not so much.

    The early flash poll has the winners and losers as such (540 respondents, large potential margin of error…. Or not) Romney 46, Obama 22, Tie 36. Tie at 36 with Romney at 46 is bad news for President Obama. As Bill Clinton says, it the math!

    Chuck Todd, MSMBC says it reminds him of The Bush, Kerry Debate. Oh, my; the best Chuck can do is to intimate the Romney responses were ‘too hot’. Whoa, tough commentary must hurt to come up with nothing on a Conservative. Yes, folks I watch MSNBC, Sun Tsu!

    Ed Shultz,……..Ed Shultz; “Romney looked good” (I paraphrase). Ed said the President did not appear to be on ‘sure footing’ and Romney did! From Ed Shultz. WOW, the age of miracles has not yet passed. Ed goes on “lefties not sure where to go”! Whoa!!!!

  • Bill Hedges

    bho said Mitt could not pay for tax cuts to rich by closing loopholes. SIMPLE MATH PROVED says bho. Didn’t bho extend & sign extension of both lower & higher end tax cuts ? Don’t recall BHO paying for THAT when he WAS ONE WHO signed PAY AS YOU GO awhile back:

    1. “Lying About Bush’s Tax Cuts”.

    “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”.

    “This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”.

    “If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the “feedback effect” of a tax cut. ”

    http://www.americanthinke….._cuts.html

    2. CBO says America can not afford obumacare. Thought Supreme Court ruling HELPED reduce loss for government because States can OPT OUT:

    “Obamacare Hurts Seniors and the Middle Class” — Columbus (OH) Dispatch Editorial”

    “But there are still many largely hidden costs to the legislation that haven’t been highlighted. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the law, Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of them. The mandate, which imposes a tax penalty on individuals who fail to buy health insurance and on employers who fail to provide it to employees, is projected to raise $65 billion in the first 10 years after it goes into effect in 2014. But this is just a small part of an estimated $500 billion in new taxes the law will impose.”

    “$13.2 billion generated by a cap on flexible-spending accounts for health care. Using these accounts, families can set aside pre-tax income to pay health-care expenses. The new contribution cap of only $2,500 will mean higher income taxes for any family that previously has put more than that aside in these tax-free accounts. This provision is expected to particularly hurt families with special-needs children, who often use these tax-free accounts to pay for special education.”

    “$5 billion raised by prohibiting Americans from using pre-tax dollars in health-savings accounts and flexible-spending accounts to buy non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines.”

    “$4.5 billion from the elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for retirees in coordination with Medicare Part D. $60.”

    “$ 1 billion in new taxes on health insurers; based on health-insurance premiums collected, this tax will be phased in over several years starting in 2014.”

    “$20 billion from a new 2.3 percent tax on medical devices and equipment. Some manufacturers already have laid off workers ahead of this tax taking effect; others warn that they will have to shift production and investment overseas. This tax also will raise the cost of health care and be passed along to those who buy health insurance.”

    “$123 billion from a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for households making at least $250,000, or single-filers making $200,000 or more. This will result in a much higher top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, which could discourage investment by upper-middle class and wealthy Americans. That, in turn, would hurt the overall economy.”

    http://battlegroundwatch……editorial/

    3. “Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy”

    “MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits.”

    “FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once:”

    “MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth.”

    “FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997.”

    “MYTH: Lower tax rates don’t cause economic growth.”

    “FACT: Even JFK understood that lower tax rates produce economic growth and even higher tax revenue. According to President Kennedy:”

    http://www.mtgriffith.com…..tmyths.htm

  • Bill Hedges
  • Bill Hedges
  • Back to MSNBC. Chris Matthews has a long list of what the President did not do. And…. he has his own list in addition to his criticisms. What Chris is most aggravated about is that, apparently, the President does not tune in to bask is the Matthew’s strategic view.

    Chris is forced to recognize a poll where 56% of folks say their opiion of Romney has improved, 13% say the same of the President. Those are not good numbers for the President. Just saying. Oh, and if you missed it, it’s the moderators. fault.

    Romney is in Obama’s head. the ‘Zinger” threat forced the President to go moderate and hence, lose momentum.

  • Bill Hedges

    Near end of debate Mitt was talking about what he would do first and second day in office. bho said something to effect Mitt would have trouble booting out bumcare with Democrats.

    bho there is a different mix in Congress NOW than when bumcare PASSED. May be even MORE THE SAME different come this election. (Yes people not in office now won’t be in office until Jan.). bho rushed through bumcare BEFORE new MA Senator took office. A REPUBLICAN. How many Democrat supporters of bumcare in Congress were BOOTED Nov. 2, 2010 ? How many will be BOOTED this Nov. ??? Polls STILL against bumcare !!!

    If MITT IS elected, will Democrats support dropping bumcare ??? Maybe !!!

    A interesting fact came out in debate I DID NOT KNOW. 87 % of legislature in MA while Mitt was governor WAS DEMOCRAT. Like Newt, Mitt can work both sides of the isle…

  • Bill Hedges

    In debate bho talked about the glory days under Bill Clinton. As my data provided on this article it was Newt’s tax CUTS that did the GLORY.

    bho TALKED about the banks that did all the trouble leading to recession. The cooperate jets getting tax breaks. bho, THAT WAS YOU:

    1. “ObamaRecession – Mitt MUST call BO out on this!”

    “#ObamaRecession -Gov mortgage policy was root cause. BO had huge role directing ACORN trashing Bank CEO lawns demanding toxic loans. Time for quick proofs per links below.”

    *** “Mitt MUST call put BO on the root cause of the Great Recession. BO continues to blame Bush policies and ties those to Romney’s policies. Mitt must counter as it is very, very EZ to prove that Government mortgage policy was root cause of Recession and both BO and Barney Frank played major roles in it.”

    http://economics501.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/root-cause-2008-9-recession/

    http://economics501.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/mitt-romney-commercial-1/

    http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2012/10/03/the-debate/

    2. “Obama Blasts Private Jet Tax Breaks Included in His Own Stimulus” id debate.

    bho said in past “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well,” the president stated at one point, “to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys.”

    “But the corporate jet tax break to which Obama was referring – called “accelerated depreciation,” and a popular Democratic foil of late – was reauthorized by his own stimulus package.”

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/obama-blasts-private-jet-tax-breaks-created-by-his-own-stimulus/

    bho’s lies catches up with him. bho should worry if this becomes COMMON KNOWLEDGE…

  • Bones

    I did think Romney won. He held his own very well, though I thought he was a bit rude to the moderator. On the other hand, I think he’s positioned himself very well – without any specific plans to discuss the merits of, he was able to essentially play the critic. He enjoyed the ability to lambaste the president without the vulnerability of having any real plans of his own to attack.

    Yes, it was poor form of the president to keep bringing up a tax plan that Mitt Romney insisted wasn’t his. And the president exaggerated some of the numbers. But his essential point was true – the Tax Policy Center concluded a while back that Mitt Romney’s tax plan is mathematically impossible. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

    Oh, and Romney brought the old Death Panel myth out of the closet, Politifact’s Lie of the Year for 2009. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/). Sad to see that getting attention again.

    Ultimately, I’ll be interested to see how far Mitt Romney can get without laying out much in the way of actual plans for the future. I’m impressed he’s got this far. However, I’ll say this for the debate – it was surprisingly civil and policy-oriented for the age we live in. I really hope that keeps up.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    I freely ADMIT ***ESTIMATES*** WILL SHOW loss of revenue nearly every time if not every time. BUT CBO real numbers show increase in revenue EVERYTME tax cuts for rich are given (have ALWAYS SAID THAT). Already have showed (real numbers) that in links previously mentioned in comments.

    I HAVE YET to see these ECONOMIC EXPERTS (as in your link) use REAL NUMBERS to prove rich pay less taxes when given tax cuts. Now I am being very specific. Tax cuts for non-rich will loss revenue. They don’t generally speaking do the investing. Their $$$ is used living.

    Again my proof has already been given previously. Another important point EVERY TIME DEBT did not increase because of extra revenue from tax cuts for wealthy, BUT increase in SPENDING caused higher debt. Here is link showing SAME revenue increases (as Bush) under different Presidents from 20‘s,Kennedy to Reagan (that link gives more links). AGAIN *** REAL NUMBERS *** not estimates:

    “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

    JFK

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

    Bones writes “Ultimately, I’ll be interested to see how far Mitt Romney can get without laying out much in the way of actual plans for the future”

    In debate Mitt said as governor MA legislator was 87 % Democrat as I recall. Together they WORKED OUT their difference TOGETHER without the gridlock like now. Newt had to shut down government TWICE for short period of time, but caught Bill C. attention and things got done. AS already showed in links previous, Bill C’s TAX INCREASES did not perform nearly as well as Newt’s TAX CUTS for rich in GENERATING REVENUE or GLORY DAYS OF CLINTON administration. Here you have Democrat increase & Republican cut taxes for rich SIDE BY SIDE. From INCREASE THEN CUT. Cut winning.

    Mitt said he does have plan and so said to bho. He also said everything could not be set in granite. REMEMBER two parties compromising ??? Give & take…

    THE so called DEALTH PANEL recently began. I will refer to A REAL DEALTH PANEL in one of our States:

    “Obama adviser admits: ‘We need death panels”

    3 days ago

    “A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

    “Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”

    “We need death panels,” began Rattner. “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-adviser-admits-we-need-death-panels/

    Nothing new here. Other countries with similar health plans MUST cut expenses because they HAVE RUNAWAY COST.

    “Pro-life video of the day: Doctors offer woman death, not medicine” video

    Death pills YES. Expensive cancer treatment NO.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/09/pro-life-video-of-the-day-doctors-offer-woman-death-not-medicine/

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2

    “MYTH: We can only cut taxes if we cut spending by the same amount; otherwise, tax cuts will reduce revenue and cause deficits.”

    “FACT: Historically tax cuts have always paid for themselves. Federal revenue increased after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts, after the Clinton tax cuts, and after the Bush tax cuts. The problem has not been taxes. The problem has been runaway spending. Total federal spending has not dropped once in over 40 years—not once”:

    “· Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%.

    · Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%.

    · Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%.

    · Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%.

    · Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%.

    · Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%.

    · Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%.

    · Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%.”

    “If we would just stop spending so much money, we would have a surplus, taxes could be even lower than they are now, and we could start paying off the national debt. The problem isn’t that we aren’t being taxed enough. The problem is that the government is spending too much money.”

    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

  • Bones

    Bill, you use a lot of facts, and I respect that. But you overload on them, and insert a lot of your own conjecture about what they prove, and you have a tendency to use loaded language or to become accusatory. This can make you difficult to talk with. But let me address a few of your points.

    1) Taxes

    Tax cuts for the rich may or may not pay for themselves. But if they do result in the rich paying just as much or more in taxes, the only reason for that I can see is that those cuts make the rich so much richer that they have to pay more taxes on their new-found wealth. While I recognize that in some respects this may be good for the economy, it is not good for the income disparity in this country. The rich get richer and the middle class and poor stay the same or get poorer.

    The economy did not prosper under Bush. The deficit everyone is so concerned about now, that seems hopeless to ever pay off, began with him. This makes me wary of his economic strategies. I am aware that the key is to either raise revenues and/or cut spending. But neither is solely to blame. They need to be in balance.

    2) Partisan gridlock and Romney’s Plan

    Romney did insist he had a plan, but he didn’t talk much about it. The plan Obama kept attacking, that Romney kept insisting wasn’t his (and said that if it were, he wouldn’t support it) is indeed his plan, to the best of my knowledge. If he has a new one, I haven’t heard about it.

    And I do think our President had a point when he spoke doubtfully of Romney’s ability to repeal Obamacare and sit down at the table to partner with Democrats on the same day. I don’t forsee much cooperation between the isles when his number 1 priority is to repeal a law the other side of the isle worked very hard to pass.

    3) Death Panels
    This is a falsity. There is no truth to the death panel myth.
    Quoting an Obama adviser who thinks we need Death Panels only shows with absolute certainty that they do not exist in the current law. If they did, he wouldn’t be saying that.

    If you believe there are death panels built into Obamacare, then please point to the provision in the law. Frankly, I think it’s as real as Santa Claus, and I think less of Mr. Romney for pretending a death panel will be coming down my chimney.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    1. “Tax cuts for the rich may or may not pay for themselves”

    When did they NOT ?

    2. “The economy did not prosper under Bush. The deficit everyone is so concerned about now, that seems hopeless to ever pay off, began with him”

    Check out my comment before yours. WHO controlled Congress. Recession certainly did harm economy. Not Bush’s fault. He tried to stop the runaway train:

    “Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn’t Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

    3. “the only reason for that I can see is that those cuts make the rich so much richer that they have to pay more taxes on their new-found wealth”

    NOT according to links provided and JFK quote I gave.

    4. “income disparity”

    Only way to help the less among us and reduce their taxes is reduce taxes on rich. Which leads to JOBS.

    5. “And I do think our President had a point when he spoke doubtfully of Romney’s ability to repeal Obamacare and sit down at the table to partner with Democrats on the same day”

    MANY of those that passed bumcare was VOTED OUT. Replaced with Republicans. POLLS STILL dislike bumcare.

    6. “3) Death Panels”. “Quoting an Obama adviser who thinks we need Death Panels only shows with absolute certainty that they do not exist in the current law”.

    He did say that.

    Death panel was shown in video I provided. Cancer victim refused expensive care and offered suicide pill. Same as in England and other countries. CALL it “rationing” if you like.

    There is a panel that days ago began.

    As quoted earlier “A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the ***** rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”*****

    “Rationing” is another word for it. Expensive treatment for old person or young with limited money as a factor. You buy a insurance policy in old days you had legal contract enforcible in court. Coming soon a panel decides your treatment.

    buma promised to have CSPAN cover . NOT done. 4 year + wait for full bumcare. buma promised to explain. Pelosi to explain ONCE passed. STILL WAITING.

    You wrote “insert a lot of your own conjecture about what they prove, and you have a tendency to use loaded language or to become accusatory”

    Like you “Santa” ???

    “Conjecture” is unproven. Reason why I use a lot of links is support my statements. The two political sites I visit I can safely say I lead in giving links. You obvious can dispute my conclusions as you wish. I provide my evidence. You provide your. As when I debated in school.

    “ loaded language or to become accusatory” may be in the eyes of the beholder. I call buma a liar when my evidence supports it. Without evidence I don’t call him a liar. That would be wrong. If shown my data is incorrect then I so state…

  • P.T. Goodman

    Hedges,

    Give it a rest. If I wanted pages and pages of Fox propaganda, I’d watch Fox. If you weren’t here, more reasonable people would be.

  • P.T. Goodman

    The consensus is that Romney won. I’m not sure what metric was used to determine that. It’s every undecided for him/her-self IMO. If you haven’t decided by now, you have not been paying attention…and probably shouldn’t not be allowed to vote. Wait, the Republicans are trying to prevent people from voting so it’s all good.

  • Bill Hedges

    “CBO: Obamacare Raises Taxes On Middle Class”

    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/livingston-tn/TNTEQQHQGQJNSCNAE

    “CBO Just Rendered Its Verdict On The Cost Of Obamacare, And It Isn’t Pretty”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/08/06/the-cbo-just-rendered-its-verdict-on-the-cost-of-obamacare-and-it-isnt-pretty/

    There is you rationing. bumacare was to be cost neutral. NOT add to debt…

  • Bill Hedges

    Obviously NOT a conservative link. BUT, uses real numbers:

    “Bush’s tax cuts eventually became law, and as a result, the wealthy got a massive tax cut. In addition to rate cuts on income taxes, the Bush tax cuts included cuts to the capital gains rate and other investment taxes and an estate tax cut, all of which largely benefit the rich. The plan came at a cost of $2.5 trillion over its first decade.”

    “And while Bush was technically correct that the rich did “pay more taxes on the percentage of the whole,” that is “a useless measure of tax progressivity,” as Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has explained. The share of taxes paid by the wealthy grew by 25 percent under Bush, but their share of income grew by 30 percent, evidence that they actually got a massive tax cut. Bush’s promise, just like Romney’s, is a vague misdirection meant to distract from the overall tax cut he planned to provide.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/tag/bush-tax-cuts/

    Bush tax cuts INCLUDED lower tax levels. Without INCREASED revenue by rich more taxes from lower levels would be needed to sustain ever increasing spending levels. bho is KING DEBTER…

  • Bones

    Bill, I will not take on full faith and credit anything written with titles such as “Debunking liberal myths”. This is an example of partisan journalism, where the writer clearly, and un-apologetically has an agenda. I don’t take my information from dailykos, or the huffington post or Fox news or msnbc either. Unbiased analysis and unbiased journalism, that’s what I look for in informative articles. Do you know why?

    This article was created by ‘conservatives’ for ‘conservatives’, and is derisive of ‘liberals’. I will no more take it at face value than I did Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 is very convincing if you don’t bother to fact check it and see the distortions, the manipulation. The information that it put in, the information that it left out.

    I don’t want to fact check informative articles. That defeats the purpose of reading it to be informed. Referencing the CBO, now that I like. But I’ve taken classes in journalism, and when an article’s first line is “The state-run media is trying to make something of this latest Pelosi fabrication today.” I know instantly that it is either an opinion piece, or it’s downright unprofessional. In professional journalism, the first line or so summarizes the story.

    Similarly another of your links begins “With every passing day, more evidence mounts that Obamacare is a costly disaster”. Not professional journalism. Biased partisan opinion piece. The other link you posted connected to Forbes. That’s generally well respected, I’d accept that. Only it’s title is “Verdict On The Cost Of Obamacare, And It Isn’t Pretty”. Opinion piece.

    Look, we cannot argue facts with opinion pieces and biased sources. It doesn’t make sense, it’s like building a house on mud. I won’t even try it. Too much effort, too little yield.

  • Bones

    Oh, you responded again as I was writing my response. Still though, while it was partisan in the other direction (and it’s heartening to see you read both sides) it’s still strongly partisan. It’s still an opinion piece.

  • Bill Hedges

    NOTE

    “The plan came at a cost of $2.5 trillion over its first decade” is a estimate…

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    Then simple disprove. Facts & figures just as I did…

  • Bill Hedges

    Won’t discuss “Not professional journalism” and the like…

  • JDBURCH

    The President can deliver a finely crafted teleprompted speech better than most, however, he cannot think and react on his feet. He made great promises 4yrs ago, he did not deliver, not even close.

    Gov. Romney gave a great speech complete with knowledgable responses interjected with impromptu wit. I was surprised.

    After listening to the President of Bulgaria interview, in which he states, we HAVE lowered our income tax to a flat 10% for everyone, business and individual alike. We HAVE created a welcome incentive for Corporations to relocate here by paying for all employee wages and benefits for 2yrs. And we ARE receiving MORE revenue in Government every year through tremendous growth. I know it will work here also.

    The problem is that both Parties, Republican and Democrat alike, lie to the American voter. In every election they will send their cronies out among us to craft a finely polished platform that will sway us independents and undecideds to their side of the Party aisle to win the election. Then their Party Agenda takes over and the winner does whatever the Party tells him too. The Political favors begin for all those who, through their wealth and political savey, made IT happen.

    IF Mitt Romney should win the election, and IF he were to turn health care and education and abortion and all other Domestic issues and decisions over to the State Legislatures. And IF he were to create a growth oriented business climate by tending to interstate and international issues. And IF he were to broaden the tax base to include EVERYONE. And IF he were to lower tax rates so all could afford to pay their taxes without special exemptions, loopholes, or tax floors. His ideas could work. However, you do not become President of these United States without owing hundreds of favors to a whole lot of people who DO NOT want these things to happen!

    I say;
    Lower corporate and personal tax rates in return for eliminating EVERY special tax loophole. Take ALL govt. subsidy away from business. And in return promote business by bringing the oil pipeline down from Canada. Promote farming by developing support for water projects for abundant and cheap water. Promote energy by not only allowing oil and gas and coal exploration, but by developing infrastructure that promotes consumption of our Domestic resources. (ie: a govt supported program to install natural gas refueling infrastructure would open closed gas fields and creat thousands of jobs overnight.) ( a govt. supported program to convert all oil based power generation to clean coal power generation would open closed mining operations and create thousands of jobs overnight!) Take the “Federal” out of “State and Federal Regulations”! If National and International Corporations and individuals do not conform to State Regulations, give the States authority to exclude them! Give the States authority to control and protect their own borders, physically and economically! If the individual States become so self regulated that they impede interstate and international commerce, let the Federal Government lobby the individual State Legislatures on behalf of the American People. That’s right, let the Federal Government become a lobbyist in every State Legislature. What better way to prevent the Federal Bureaucracy from producing panacea one-solution-fits-all policy and law?

    However, I expect Mitt Romney will win the election(if he continues his superior debating skills) and pay-off his financial and political supporters by continuing the time honored tradition of screwing the voter. That, after all, is why I became a Libertarian.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    From one of your links:

    “PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’”

    “Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.”

    “Death panels.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

    This reminds me of what you wrote:

    “… Still though, while it was partisan in the other direction (and it’s heartening to see you read both sides) it’s still strongly partisan. It’s still an opinion piece.”

    Seems to be excuse to discredit my links. Didn’t bother you to use, as you say, “ strongly partisan” link. Just when mine ???

    A double standard…

  • Bones

    Bill,

    First off, you have every right to question my sources as I question yours. It’s not a double standard, I think that’s fair. I don’t consider politifact to be a biased news source, but I did link to something that was voted for by users, and hence not factual. I will say, I hold fact checkers to a slightly different standard, in that they do not report journalistic stories. For instance, on the presidential debate, they do not attempt to summarize, they list the questionable facts on both sides item by item and then give their analysis.

    That being said, you can also see factcheck.org’s analysis on death panels here: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/ They have a similar take on it, but include falsities and exaggerations from both sides of the debate

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    I made my point. Title is short description of article. Like I said won’t get into this too heavy. Is opinion stuff.

    Heritage gets their data from government. Bottom of page has plenty of footnotes. You want to pluff it off. You want to JUST DISMISS the data. Well the data is damaging and can’t blame you for trying.

    You say you did not commit double standard if you want.You say it isn’t because AS YOU SAY “I hold fact checkers to a slightly different standard… ” Me too on my links. No double standard CORRECT ???

    SO ANSWER the data in my links. Your latest link is at the bottom to be answered…

  • Bill Hedges

    I never questioned your links. Only did to point out you did what you blamed me for.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    If you place my facts in links off the table might as well end our conversation on this article. Hands behind my back & your hands free discussion is not fair…

  • Bones

    Bill, I apologize if I’ve offended you. I never intended to ‘blame’ you for anything. Your opinions and the sources you use to form them are your own, and you have every right to them. Personally, I am very suspicious of strongly partisan news sources; I have the right to that opinion as well. I’m sorry if that makes me difficult to have a discussion with. I agree, this is not a productive discussion. Thank you for the attempt though.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones you seem confused about my response so will be blunt.

    You did not “offend” me. Just won’t play THAT GAME.

    Your link had same “very suspicious of strongly partisan news sources” but you said your link was EXCEPTION.. CBO quote you say is ok BUT you ignore answering. IF you disproved the links I can accept that. To just dismiss for whatever reasons puts me out of discussion.

    Liberals don’t have the data to prove tax cuts for rich does not increase government revenue BECAUSE IS TRUE. I HAVE the proof that you just DISMISS but not because data is un-factual. Because *** “suspicious” ***. I never say I don’t want buma as president because he is *** “suspicious” ***.

    Mike made a statement about Bush and tax cuts for rich on “Fear Of Facts And The 47%”.. I gave contradicting information fairly immediately. Mike needed two days to prove his statement. He said SOME OF IT might be over my head. Need I say his two days are up and NO PROOF. MAYBE tomorrow ??? Will see. Holding breathe.

    From experience with liberals on liberal site for years, I have not had a liberal disprove my data in question. Before YES they have dismissed my source. NEVER data. NEVER data.NEVER data. Heritage & American OH YES. Many liberals HATE successful Fox news. Did they prove BAD ? NO. Problem is few liberal sources will support my data or liberal data prove they are right on this subject. JUST IS, IS. I gave statement on death panel from liberal source and you complimented my reading. BUT did not answer the source. Didn’t want a compliment was making point for answer.

    I won’t get into how having “MYTH” in title is acceptable. I don’t get into Mid East for same reason. I won’t enter into more discussion with you on this article FOR SAME REASON. Won’t have my hands tied behind my back for no good reason. You can’t disprove the data SO FAR !!! MIKE HAS YET to do. He said he would…. Waiting Mike … Patiently … Haven’t forgotten…

  • Bones

    Bill, you do, in fact, seem a bit offended.

    I did not say that the link I offered, and that you objected to, was an exception. Here were my words: “First off, you have every right to question my sources as I question yours. It’s not a double standard, I think that’s fair. I don’t consider politifact to be a biased news source, but I did link to something that was voted for by users, and hence not factual.”

    Those words are me, admitting to my mistake, and confessing that the link I provided was not of high integrity. To make up for this error I also wrote this: “you can also see factcheck.org’s analysis on death panels here: http://factcheck.org/2012…..larations/”

    That was me, providing a second link analyzing the same information, which I believe to have better integrity. I don’t see how this ties your hand in some unfair battle – first off there is no battle. It is a discussion.

    I don’t ask that you reference liberal sources. In fact, I find obviously liberal sources to be suspect, for the same reason I find obviously conservative sources to be suspect. There is a clear and unapologetic agenda behind the analysis, and I distrust it. I prefer unbiased journalism. I know that’s harder to come by these days then it used to be, but unbiased journalism sticks to the facts and avoids speculation. That’s what I look for. Such articles may use the word “Myth” in their title, but they do not have titles such as “Myths liberals believe”.

    You don’t need to agree with my preferences, or even like them, but I’d appreciate it if you could respect them. We’ve both agreed that we cannot derive a productive discussion on this subject. There’s no need to spend further time arguing about why we can’t have one.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones writes “Bill, you do, in fact, seem a bit offended.” I am *** “suspicious” *** of your ability to read my emotions. POSITIVE I am not offended. I WON’T CONTINUE in conversations similar to ones I had with DD Moa. TOO “tedious”.

    I respect a person who can disprove evidence if evidence is incorrect. Saying *** “suspicious” *** in order to dismiss facts you don’t like (or like) gets no “respect” from me. You used a link then when I called you on it THEN you (fill in the rest)…

    Mike STILL has not answered. Surprised ? NOT ???

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2

    Bones

    Since Mike has not proved Bush’s tax cuts DID NOT increase government revenue. Maybe you want to ??? Exact quote by Mike in “Fear Of Facts And The 47%” is:

    “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008.”

    The CBO quote proves it did INCREASE REVENUE. As I recall In that article I gave some of the reasons why tax cuts for rich did not cause recession. How Bush warned of recession. Gave some reasons for recession.

    Since Mike seems to have MOVED ON having no desire to follow through with answer SO FAR, maybe you as a fellow liberal of his (though he claims he isn’t exactly a liberal. Maybe you do to ? I find that a lot. I am a conservative TEA) will answer for Mike. Liberals ARE ABLE to prove their beliefs ???

    BE SURE not to use any *** “suspicious” *** articles. Like “Conservative Jobs Conspiracy Is Nuts”. Author is VERY LIBRAL

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2012/10/05/conservative-jobs-conspiracy-is-nuts

    I DISPROVE this author’s statements ALL THE TIME.

    A article on this very site has a *** “suspicious” *** title. “Predictable Ignorance ”. I feel like you are like Joseph McCarthy searching out bad titles.

    I’ll be Joseph N. Welch who told Joseph McCarthy “Have You No Sense of Decency”:..

  • Bones

    Bill, I have posted at this site, periodically, for years. I remember back before the 2004 election when Nate did most of the articles, and Conservative Gal made the occasional post.
    When I have posted, I have frequently found myself disagreeing with others. Occasionally the debate got heated. Sometimes that happens. That’s ok.

    From what I have seen, DD Mao and Mike have been well spoken and mostly polite. But there has never been a person to frequent this place even half as belligerent as you, Bill. Not even close. I sincerely hope you are happier and easier to deal with in real life than you are on a politics blog.

    I wish you well. I will not be responding further to your posts. You will think badly of me for that. But you’ll think badly of me regardless of what I write, so in that sense, nothing lost.

  • Bill Hedges

    No problem.

    No one is forcing you to respond to me. Never have. You did so of your own free will knowing ** my history **. You thought you could win ? Why else subject yourself TO ME. I WILL ALWAYS be factual. To you that is “belligerent”. You say I will “think badly ” of you. NO. I don’t think of you. I respond to comments. This is a political site. I prove what I say. You feel and dismiss not disprove. The ways of a liberal from all I have seen…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike can say “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008” but not prove…

  • Mike

    Once again, Hedges, I follow through on my promises. Unlike you, my idea of proof is not material lifted from partisan sites wholesale. When my piece is finished, it will be thorough, cogent, carefully reasoned and cite numbers only from non-partisan sources. I know it will be wasted on you, but I made a promise. I take comfort from the fact that I have learned a good deal about tax policy from my research so far.

  • Judy Meibach

    I think it was a shame that Obama was distracted by the evening – perhaps his anniversary = and appeared unprepared – Romney capitalized on it – I think he had an inordinate amount of chutzpah in dissing PBS in front of Lehrer. But…

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike wrote “Once again, Hedges, I follow through on my promises”

    1. What is THIS “once again.” What was previous promise KEEP ?

    2. You said two days and is past two day

    3. You haven’t posted proof YET.

    You will find “Laffer Curve” in link I use often. I understand the concept. & NOT *over my head*. Didn’t you write that IN THE OTHER ARTICLE ?:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

    I DISPROVE liberal articles. Don’t use EXCUSE IS “partisan sites wholesale” . Whatever that term means (not found on Internet). Since Bush era is IN THE PAST numbers SHOULD be REAL not ESTIMATES (NO need for guess work). ESTIMATE CBO numbers will say Bush tax cut will cost government revenue. As buma says simple “MATH”. Which IS exactly how CBO figures it. In REAL numbers CBO says Rich pays MORE taxes and BIGGER portion of the tax pie (by actual taxes collected figures) WITH the tax cuts. That link I gave you previously am sure and is in this above link…

    BY HE WAY. Not using buma was done in belief you would be different. If & when you post what you say you are going to post I will continue to call him bho:

    Mike wrote “When my piece is finished, it will be thorough, cogent, carefully reasoned and cite numbers only from non-partisan sources”

    Numbers on my links come from “non-partisan sources”. Look under chart in my link.

    Then you wrote “I know it will be wasted on you, but I made a promise. ” Well you made a statement and hopefully you will prove what you said IS TRUE. That is what is done by a responsible person. Is what I do.. What Bones did was simple DISMISS as partisan and/or *** “suspicious” *** articles. I don’t RESPECT THAT. SO FAR you have insulted Bush WITH absolutely NO PROOF. Wasn’t given WHEN said earlier. Should ANYBODY admire THAT ???

  • Bill Hedges

    By “As buma says simple “MATH” I mean you reduce taxes on rich you lose revenue by % reduced…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2…

    Liberals LOVE TO COMPLAIN about bias links. And Fox. They both HURT liberals:

    “The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates”

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

    Will get you the simple article. Press at the bottom of page “The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts” at the bottom. At the bottom of this page you can push “The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts”. Thus gaining access to where data came from.

    Been studying the economics for YEARS. Have thought about going around using source NOT Heritage to cut down on complaints by liberals. I concluded long ago that would not help. Bad data for liberals get ignore most of the time anyhow.

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 3

    Like JFK said MAYBE Clinton learned. Tax cuts not tax hikes for rich increase government revenue:

    7/16/2012 @ 5:23PM |11,767 views

    “The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase”

    Thanks Newt:

    “However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.”

    “Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.”

    “The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.”

    “In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.”

    “The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.”

    “Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.”

    “The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.”

    “The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000“:

    “Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.”

    “Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%. ”

    “As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.”

    “Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%.”

    “Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.”

    “Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.”

    “Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world.”

    “A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

  • Mike

    Dear impatient Mr. Hedges:

    1. When I said, “Once again, Hedges, I keep my promises,” I meant that I am repeating once again that I will keep it. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating it. I told you that I am on the road visiting some historical sites that I want to see before I die. I’m sorry, but that is more important to me than writing a post to you on tax policy. I never told you two days.

    I expect to be home by Wednesday. At that time I will begin collecting the research I have done on the road, add to it, and begin writing the post at my leisure. I expect you to continue with your incredibly rude and offensive accusations that I am dodging the issue. I will not respond to them.

  • the President did look a little laid back at the debate but you have to understand he is the president and is under some stress of the world and local problems. The biggest disapointment of the debate was the moderator,who was not in control at anytime.Mr Romney was very arrogant and disrespectful and did not address the issues ,but did dance around the answers very well.President Obama was in politics all of his adult life , not an actor,oilman or a businessman which have not proven to be very good in the past.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike

    You write “I expect you to continue with your incredibly rude and offensive accusations that I am dodging the issue. I will not respond to them.” I re-checked previous article and you did not say 2 days. I was wrong. My mistake. I apologize. No excuses.

    WHEN YOU BROUGHT UP “C” I said forget DIDN’T I ?

    I must be “ incredibly rude and offensive”. I expected you to prove WHEN SAID “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008” … IS NOT the way I do things obviously. My error…

    I was WRONG to immediately answer with substance & links that disputed your statement. Should have LET IT GO or waited a week and really studied up on my response. CBO says Bush tax cuts for rich INCREASED government revenue. Just as happened in 20’s, JFK, Reagan, Newt, and Bush. Have provided that proof in links on this article. Some was in previous article. Have given link with bunches of warnings by Bush’s administration of recession possible coming. Which Barney Frank DENIED. That Democrats IGNORED. How WRONG I was. My source is NOT CLEAN but not DISPROVEN. Thus dismissable for liberals ?!?! AM from old school, you disprove NOT dismiss links. Seems to me IS in same ball park as calling those against bumacare racist. Not logical without proof.

    NOW YOU will answer “at my leisure”. Fact is tax cuts FOR RICH increase government revenue. Did in 20‘s, JFK, and Reagan. Bill C’s tax HIKES did poorly. Newt’s tax CUTS did what Bill C tax increase didn’t do, giving him his bragging rights about his SURPLUS. Then there was Bush tax cut.

    Have already documented my evidence. Shows WARNINGS Bush gave trying to STOP RECESSION. THAT SMASHES your comment. Naturally WITHOUT PROVING wrong, my links are worthless. You think that is not “ incredibly rude and offensive”. Maybe you don’t think saying “It is to explain why more tax cuts weighted to the wealthy will make a healthier economy when they did the exact opposite from 2000 to 2008” without proof WHEN SAID is not “ incredibly rude and offensive” (that’s common practice ?) ???

    You put your neck in the noose agreeing to prove a liberal’s OLD WIVES TALE version of *** recession was Bush’s fault ***. Such things are only to be said in 10 second spots. NOT PROVEN. IF PROVEN you could pull out that link & post it easy as pie. *** Was that easy proving your statement WRONG ***…

    I know you don’t want to prove “Obama was in politics all of his adult life , not an actor,oilman or a businessman which have not proven to be very good in the past.”

    A community organizer is “politics all of his adult life” ? buma has proven to be good president ? You want to prove that about Reagan (was he governor ?), I guess you mean Mitt (was he governor ?), and Bush (was he governor ?) ? Wasn’t Bill C. governor ? I’m not waiting 6 months for you to prove all that if ever…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2

    I’ll do as I always do prove what I say pretty much immediately. Am conservative TEA not a liberal…

  • Bill Hedges

    I’ll stop responding SOOO QUICK TO Mike’s comments. Let others enjoy. Not my cup of ** TEA ** FOR when I insult buma I give reason//proof nearly spontaneously most every time.

    Maybe in a week, month, quarter, OR fiscal year Mike will prove statement he made about Bush… FOR SURE !!!

  • Bill Hedges

    buma is change. Illegal change. buma doesn’t like I.D’S…

    Next debate Mitt should ask buma WHY illegal contributions are STILL HAPPENING like in his previous campaign. Last time I checked contributions was having to refund money from first time. Now second time AS WELL !!! NO learning curve ??? No. There is learning curve just need for illegal donations still:

    Tuesday, October 09, 2012

    “Obama Campaign Using Illegal Foreign Donations…Just Like 2008”

    “In other words, an organization like MoveOn or Think Progress could run multiple under the limit transactions with one card and any number of aliases and fake addresses owned by, say, George Soros or another well fixed donor.”

    http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-campaign-using-illegal-foreign.html

  • Mike

    Hedges, see my post under 47%