Debate Transcripts
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Don't be so sour. Obama lost. I don't expect it is the end of the world for him and I would not act as Matthews has.
Romney was vague on the tax cuts and Obama did a good job on pressing him there. He completely blew the Trump point. In real time I thought he was just making a dig on Trump but after reading here I see he had a point. The real turning point to me was when Romney suplexed him on the oil tax breaks vs the green energy breaks. Obama had that one coming and he even seemed to take it in stride.
I don't see where Obama was any less vague except when talking about Romney's tax plan. But he should keep pressing for details there and on spending cuts. Romney seemed to want to go the Pollyanna, grow the economy stuff. I was heartened by the fact that he seemed to realize that was not going to fly. That is, it implies that voters may be waking up and might not be fooled by the same old lies.
Also, Obama got hurt when he started talking about micromanaging medical care. He was trying to do what Clinton does but Romney was ready. There are some issues where the President should remain vague. He needs to make sure when he talks about that he does not take too much credit for it. He sounds like Gore, "I took the intiative in creating the internet." Instead, just talk about how his actions enabled others.
Once they turn to social issues Romney is going to struggle.
Romney was vague on the tax cuts and Obama did a good job on pressing him there. He completely blew the Trump point. In real time I thought he was just making a dig on Trump but after reading here I see he had a point. The real turning point to me was when Romney suplexed him on the oil tax breaks vs the green energy breaks. Obama had that one coming and he even seemed to take it in stride.
I don't see where Obama was any less vague except when talking about Romney's tax plan. But he should keep pressing for details there and on spending cuts. Romney seemed to want to go the Pollyanna, grow the economy stuff. I was heartened by the fact that he seemed to realize that was not going to fly. That is, it implies that voters may be waking up and might not be fooled by the same old lies.
Also, Obama got hurt when he started talking about micromanaging medical care. He was trying to do what Clinton does but Romney was ready. There are some issues where the President should remain vague. He needs to make sure when he talks about that he does not take too much credit for it. He sounds like Gore, "I took the intiative in creating the internet." Instead, just talk about how his actions enabled others.
Once they turn to social issues Romney is going to struggle.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Provided the 2% goes back in place, SS is not too hard to fix. Medicare is the 500lb gorilla.
That said, when reading the transcripts it is not nearly the ass kicking that it appeared to be on TV. Which goes to show how important posture, body language, tone, facial expressions can be in setting the perception. Obama looked and sounded weak and defensive. Yet that is not how it reads.
Both were very vague, so I am not seeing why some people are pretending Obama offered up a lot of details. But again, that is probably desperation given the perception after the live performance. Witness Chris Matthews meltdown for a prime example.
The 2% was never taken out. I've explained this to you numerous times.
Also, too, it's not difficult to win a debate when you have no problem lying about your agenda and policy proposals and your opponent lets you lie about his. It's pretty much the same thing Romney did in 2002. The man has no problem lying with a grin. It's really quite remarkable.
Plus his claims about the millions of jobs he will create, and he used the figure from the CBO report, which the CBO states will happen no matter who is President!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Be carefull what you wish for.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
here's Obama's response to the question of whether he will work with Republicans in the next four years......any libs care to fact check this paragraph?.....
for starters, what do we know about these ladders of opportunity for the middle class?.....
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's because it's pretty much a non-issue as it still runs a surplus as is and for the foreseable future and when it starts to not run a surplus, that's an easy fix. Obama is right Defense and Medicare are the biggest drivers of our national debt and Romney's numbers simply don't add up. The problem is, Obama's numbers didn't seem to add up either. Romney's support of our military may be good political strategy but it isn't going to reduce our debt, unless you raise taxes.
I was suprised on several accounts. Romney's insessant comment of Obama eliminating 750 billion in benefits from Medicare was easily refuted and would have made Romney look lame, but he didn't do it. Why?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Agreed.
Even with the 2% back in place it starts to run at a deficit VERY soon. The deficit and depletion dates continue to move up. Medicare is a big problem as well, but not as politically untoucahable.
Obama has big problems with the audible pauses. The facial expression were on his side but then Romney tore into him.
I agree on the vagueness. Obama hammered specifics on Romney's plan early and was effective. He gave none of his own though.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, if nothing is done that is correct. But it still remains a relatively easy fix. Especially compared to Medicare. SS... Currently it is a tax on income up to $110k.
Change that to taxed on income as is up to $110k adjusted annually for inflation. Then add in an additional tax of 3% on all income (for employee, not employer) over $500k (again adjusted annually for inflation). Note, this is an estimate. I am fairly certain that adjustment would cover the shortfall until the echo boomers come into their greater earning cycle and the baby boomers begin dying off in larger numbers.
You can debate whether we should allow privatization as well... I think this is a good idea, even if the requirement is all money must be invested in treasuries. This way the money can pass on to heirs if not used.
I would disagree on the facial expression part. Obama was fine while talking, it was when Romney was talking that his expressions betrayed him.
Agreed... for the most part, if you read what Obama stated, then yes. But if you listened to him, I don't think it was very effective.
Are any of the tax increases you suggest going to increase benefits? From the sound of it your idea does not stop the deficits in SS. That will have to be made up for in one of three ways, 1) with new external debt that will make us less attractive to investors, 2) reduced spending from other popular programs/military 3) large tax increases.
Your ideas are a bit politically naive. I know it is not undoable. But no one talks about it and when it does come to the table and the details are revealed all the moderate ideas turn into extremist ones.
See above, option 1. Your solution here might make the problems worse. The money is invested in securities now. All your shift would do is give earlier ponzi investors power to favor SOME of the newer ponzi investors.
You are definitely a Keynesian. You buy into the shell game.
That's to what I was referring. Romney looked agitated, very tired and on the brink of losing his temper early.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, benefits would remain the same. The whole point is increasing revenue and not increasing expenses, so it would of course stop the deficits without any of the three (other than the already stated increase in SS taxes)
No, they are not naive. It is the easiest way to correct the deficit problem. This solution has been discussed, though the far right is going to resist it.
No, it will not make things worse. It will shore up the system so that when the echo boomers get to retirement they won't face the same stupid situation we are in today (not enough workers per retiree).
Privatization eliminates the shell game. Keynes was correct and if implemented as he suggested it works. Just as supply side works if done correctly. The problem lies in that the Dems have warped Keynes and the Reps have warped supply side.
I wasn't clear... when Obama spoke, his body language was fine. When Romney spoke, Obama's body language and expressions betrayed him. That is what I was referring to when I stated 'his expressions betrayed him'. It was like Obama thought he was off camera.
I don't want to get into breaking everything our of context, I should not have started.
I would like to see the numbers on how it stops the deficits. I am not talking about deficits after the depletion date. I am talking about the need to liquidate the "trust fund" and convert it into external debt. But whatever, I am not saying your idea has no merit.
The sentence in bold was the point . You blow this off as if it is easy. That is a BIT politically naive. The political battle will not be easy. Ignoring the details now is not going to make it any easier.
Privatization does not end the shell game. It just moves the ball. The treasuries will accrue interest that will have to be paid from taxpayers and the general fund. It is a ponzi sheme where you are buying a share of the earnings of future taxpayers. I assume your plan would require that the "asset" be cashed in after a certain age or penalty would be paid? With life expectancies among various demographics being what they are this could be rather unfair and volatile. Young poor people will be taxed for the longer than average life expectancies of the upper classes.
Keynes was not at all correct. He either lied or was fooled into believing that there was some sort of magic in the shell game. The multiplier effect is busllshit. Without it everything he argued for falls apart.
Further, politics is part of the context in which every economics system or idea must operate.
I would like to see the numbers on how it stops the deficits. I am not talking about deficits after the depletion date. I am talking about the need to liquidate the "trust fund" and convert it into external debt. But whatever, I am not saying your idea has no merit.
The sentence in bold was the point . You blow this off as if it is easy. That is a BIT politically naive. The political battle will not be easy. Ignoring the details now is not going to make it any easier.
Privatization does not end the shell game. It just moves the ball. The treasuries will accrue interest that will have to be paid from taxpayers and the general fund. It is a ponzi sheme where you are buying a share of the earnings of future taxpayers. I assume your plan would require that the "asset" be cashed in after a certain age or penalty would be paid? With life expectancies among various demographics being what they are this could be rather unfair and volatile. Young poor people will be taxed for the longer than average life expectancies of the upper classes.
Keynes was not at all correct. He either lied or was fooled into believing that there was some sort of magic in the shell game. The multiplier effect is busllshit. Without it everything he argued for falls apart.
Further, politics is part of the context in which every economics system or idea must operate.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, I did...
Anyone have a quote for that. I don't remember it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Go to the OP where String posted the text from the debate. If I remember correctly he said something about $25k or $40k...