Style over substance.....yeah

[Jetmeck]

He won the style debate but lost the facts and math debate............................................ ......


Every deduction known to man will not equal the 5 trillion that a-hole wants to give out on top of the 1 trillion in Bush era tax cuts.

It will raise my taxes and a lot of others to pay for the rich people's tax cuts.


Where do you righties think he will get another 2 trillion for defense we don't need when we are winding down two wars ?


Are you guys this thick that stuff that don't add up is ok and trillions of dollars in tax cuts that the middle class will pay for with a tax increase and medicare and etc cut to the bone is the way to go ?


You rant about spending but you clueless ****s will vote for this guy ? Really go ahead stupid and vote a tax increase on the middle class, the rich ****s will trickle down, oh wait it hasn't happened the last ten years.....DOH !

[bpc]

Spin spin spin.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by bpc

Spin spin spin.

start calling him/her Maytag..

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by lonestar

start calling him/her Maytag..

If it is spin just one of you deflectors tell us all how the 5-6 trillion in tax cuts and two trillion defense spending is paid for and how we the middle class will not be paying for it ?

Independent studies have said the math doesn't add up ?

You guys are calling me a spinner, then answer up if you can ?

I am sorry but Mr. Romney's word is chit considering the video tape and flip flopping we have on record for him.

Please inform us all ?

We are waiting ?

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by bpc

Spin spin spin.

You got nothing and you know it.

Style over substance..........I take the math !

[Missouribronc]

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

whoops!!!!!!

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- $3.8 trillion over 10 years.
The president is counting money saved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for people making more than $250,000 a year.
But he's also counting on savings already agreed to last year when the White House and Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling.

[maher_tyler]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

Military/Defense...ending the war in Afghanistan.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts Obama claimed last night?

Tell me about this since you made it up ?

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Tell me about this since you made it up ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bff6_blog.html

“I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan…. And the way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 of additional revenue…. That’s how the bipartisan commission that talked about how we should move forward suggested.”

— Obama

Though Obama often claims that his deficit-reduction plan has the “balanced approach” of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission proposal offered by the co-chairmen, the Simpson-Bowles plan is actually quite different. (The commission failed to reach a consensus.)

For instance, Simpson-Bowles envisioned $4 trillion in debt reduction over nine years; the president’s plan would spread the cuts over 10 years. A good chunk of the savings from deficit reduction piles up in that last year. When the two plans are compared apples to apples, Simpson-Bowles yields about $6.6 trillion in deficit reduction — 50 percent more than Obama’s plan. (For a detailed look at the Simpson-Bowles, here is a link to a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

By Obama’s math, you have nearly $3.8 trillion in spending cuts, compared to $1.5 trillion in tax increases (letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income Americans). That’s how he claims $1 of tax increases for every $2.50 of spending cuts.

But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this 1:2.5 accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.

The Obama campaign notes that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the president’s budget would reduce the deficit by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. The national debt, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, would rise from 73 percent to 76 percent in that period, however. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also pegs the administration’s deficit reduction as $3.8 trillion, but says the ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is 1 to 1.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bff6_blog.html

Two words....balanced approach.

You answered your own question. Need to read it.

Need tax increases un upper income people to go along with reduced spending.


You have a problem with compromise if you have a problem with mostly spending cuts and some increased revenue to go along with it.

Republican get the spending cuts they want along with just a small increase for those that have made out real well last couple of decades.

Romney wants to decrease the taxes on the rich but with a decrease in tax deductions it will be revenue neutral,

EXCEPT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. He wants 5 trillion in tax cuts above the Bush 1 trillion already in place and two trillion in defense spending that is beyond stupid when we are winding down to wars.

So you got a beef with the guy wants to reduce the deficit with a balanced approach but think Romney BS which don't add up is the way to. ?

It don't add up and to make it add up the middle class will end up paying more because of less tax deductions to finance more tax breaks for the rich and defense spending we do not need.

Appreciate you at least getting in this debate but your argument is sadly flawed.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Two words....balanced approach.

You answered your own question. Need to read it.

Need tax increases un upper income people to go along with reduced spending.


You have a problem with compromise if you have a problem with mostly spending cuts and some increased revenue to go along with it.

Republican get the spending cuts they want along with just a small increase for those that have made out real well last couple of decades.

Romney wants to decrease the taxes on the rich but with a decrease in tax deductions it will be revenue neutral,

EXCEPT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. He wants 5 trillion in tax cuts above the Bush 1 trillion already in place and two trillion in defense spending that is beyond stupid when we are winding down to wars.

So you got a beef with the guy wants to reduce the deficit with a balanced approach but think Romney BS which don't add up is the way to. ?

It don't add up and to make it add up the middle class will end up paying more because of less tax deductions to finance more tax breaks for the rich and defense spending we do not need.

Appreciate you at least getting in this debate but your argument is sadly flawed.

Where are Obama's spending cuts?

You wrote a lot about Romney, but Obama's spending cuts having nothing to do with Romney.

Where are Obama's spending cuts?

[SoCalBronco]

You could tell Romney had practiced very hard and had put serious work into preparation, bullet points, analogies etc. so that he could create the appearance of being polished. Obama was a little sluggish and yes, a common criticism is he gets too detailed and too "professorial". I actually like wonkish stuff and don't mind what may seem like a too analytical approach in monotone. I agree with the administration that a balanced approach in solving the deficit issues is most reasonable. Several of the President's other points were well nuanced and appreciated. The 2.50 in cuts for every dollar in taxes is not unreasonable at all (the idea that we could force 10 to 1 ratio, or 100% cuts lacks insight into reality, that could never pass, you go for something that is mostly spending cuts but provides some revenues, and 100% deficit reduction in the form of only spending cuts would be a little too devastating to too many programs). However, Obama has to have the courage to touch the SS and Medicare rail and from his comments, he's still resisting it. I give Romney credit for being open about it, yes we wont touch 55 and over, but there will be changes made to the younger generation. He didn't shy away from it and I liked that. Alot. Most of the rest of Romney's performance I didn't care for. Don't tell me your plan isnt to cut 5T in taxes, tell me exactly what it is. How do you make it revenue neutral with the deductions and credits? Don't repeat the same thing over and over.

I did appreciate that at times in the debate Romney seemed more open to Bowles-Simpson and I think he gave some signals that he if he wins the election, he'll back a slightly more politically palatable version of Bowles-Simpson in the Congress, rather than his current proposals. He came across as more pragmatic than before, which I appreciated, but he is still hiding the ball on specifics, evasive and I still think his tax plan is not responsible and he rarely gives any detailed quality ideas.

My view of things did not change too much. I agree with Obama on taxes in general and his position as to Romney's tax plans as irresponsible, but I agree with Romney on making serious structural changes to Medicare, streamlining and consolidating federal programs and departments and putting a more exacting test on federal spending in general (I liked that discussion alot). Each guy offers only half of the equation. If Romney can continue to give more positive signals about Bowles-Simpson rather than his current tax proposals, he'll firm up my support, which is still iffy.

I remain as I was before. If 10 was a hardcore certain Romney voter and 1 was a hardcore certain Obama voter, I am at a 6....slightly in Romney's direction, but only ever so slightly. If Ryan wasn't the #2 (and there wasn't a commitment to rein in SS/Med), I'd probably be at a 4. There remains a very decent possibility that I won't vote for either ticket.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

You could tell Romney had practiced very hard and had put serious work into preparation, bullet points, analogies etc. so that he could create the appearance of being polished. Obama was a little sluggish and yes, a common criticism is he gets too detailed and too "professorial". I actually like wonkish stuff and don't mind what may seem like a too analytical approach in monotone. I agree with the administration that a balanced approach in solving the deficit issues is most reasonable. Several of the President's other points were well nuanced and appreciated. The 2.50 in cuts for every dollar in taxes is not unreasonable at all (the idea that we could force 10 to 1 ratio, or 100% cuts lacks insight into reality, that could never pass, you go for something that is mostly spending cuts but provides some revenues, and 100% deficit reduction in the form of only spending cuts would be a little too devastating to too many programs). However, Obama has to have the courage to touch the SS and Medicare rail and from his comments, he's still resisting it. I give Romney credit for being open about it, yes we wont touch 55 and over, but there will be changes made to the younger generation. He didn't shy away from it and I liked that. Alot. Most of the rest of Romney's performance I didn't care for. Don't tell me your plan isnt to cut 5T in taxes, tell me exactly what it is. How do you make it revenue neutral with the deductions and credits? Don't repeat the same thing over and over.

I did appreciate that at times in the debate Romney seemed more open to Bowles-Simpson and I think he gave some signals that he if he wins the election, he'll back a slightly more politically palatable version of Bowles-Simpson in the Congress, rather than his current proposals. He came across as more pragmatic than before, which I appreciated, but he is still hiding the ball on specifics, evasive and I still think his tax plan is not responsible and he rarely gives any detailed quality ideas.

My view of things did not change too much. I agree with Obama on taxes in general and his position as to Romney's tax plans as irresponsible, but I agree with Romney on making serious structural changes to Medicare, streamlining and consolidating federal programs and departments and putting a more exacting test on federal spending in general (I liked that discussion alot). Each guy offers only half of the equation. If Romney can continue to give more positive signals about Bowles-Simpson rather than his current tax proposals, he'll firm up my support, which is still iffy.

I remain as I was before. If 10 was a hardcore certain Romney voter and 1 was a hardcore certain Obama voter, I am at a 6....slightly in Romney's direction, but only ever so slightly. If Ryan wasn't the #2 (and there wasn't a commitment to rein in SS/Med), I'd probably be at a 4. There remains a very decent possibility that I won't vote for either ticket.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle stole $2.8 trillion from Social Security. This was money an entire generation had paid into the system. The money was stolen to pay for tax cuts for the rich, among other things. And now you support these politicians putting the burden of making up for that thievery on the backs of those who were robbed, rather than those who benefited from the robbery? What kind of ethics is that?

[nyuk nyuk]

Poor Obama needs semi-literate forum posters to help him!

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Poor Obama needs semi-literate forum posters to help him!

Dude...as usual you shouldn't go there. The only people you are communicating anything to is the mentally impaired.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was attached to the end of a 2x4..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Dude...as usual you shouldn't go there. The only people you are communicating anything to is the mentally impaired.

You wouldn't know the truth if it was attached to the end of a 2x4..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

One, I'm not a dude. Secondly, if you think my posts are of the level of mental impairment, then you should be able to rebut them without throwing insults and abusing your comma key.

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

One, I'm not a dude. Secondly, if you think my posts are of the level of mental impairment, then you should be able to rebut them without throwing insults and abusing your comma key.

Funny chit...............why have you never once answered the 5 trillion in new tax cuts on top of one trillion in bush tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending ?

It don't add up. We the middle class will have to pay for this BS we do not need................every tax deduction on the planet could be delted and it would not be revenue neutral and guess what middle class taxes will go up ?

Debate or shut up ?

Don't accuse me of BS you been doing forever around here...........like calling polls wrong and job numbers wrong and then throwing out BS like ReV Wright.

Your avatar is disrespectful and just wrong. That BIATCH would have never done that to a white PREZ.............he is our prez and deserves the respect of that office ? What part of this is difficult for you people to understand.

Dbate your boy's biggest financial point as stated above or shut up....................

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Funny chit...............why have you never once answered the 5 trillion in new tax cuts on top of one trillion in bush tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending ?

It don't add up. We the middle class will have to pay for this BS we do not need................every tax deduction on the planet could be delted and it would not be revenue neutral and guess what middle class taxes will go up ?

Debate or shut up ?

Don't accuse me of BS you been doing forever around here...........like calling polls wrong and job numbers wrong and then throwing out BS like ReV Wright.

And as usual, you go offtopic to your pet peeves if you can't answer a point about the topic of the thread with this tangential nonsense even while you accuse others of deflecting.

Your avatar is disrespectful and just wrong. That BIATCH would have never done that to a white PREZ.............he is our prez and deserves the respect of that office ? What part of this is difficult for you people to understand.

Dbate your boy's biggest financial point as stated above or shut up....................

And I'm sure you and yours referred to GW Bush respectfully as your president. Funny I noticed a shortage of such liberals during the Bush years back when the website bushorchimp.com was all the rage.

Obama deserves disrespect. Bush deserved disrespect. They defile the office.

And no I will not shut up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Looks like the end zone dances are a bit premature for DramaQueen and his Teabilly pals...

Just as expected...

Romney gains after debate ... with Republicans (Obama with independents)

READ it here: http://bit.ly/Svcxub

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

^

Looks like the end zone dances are a bit premature for DramaQueen and his Teabilly pals...

Just as expected...

Stupidity is taking anything from Daily Kos seriously.

Left-leaning media that disagree :

First post-debate poll shows Romney closing the gap on Obama

Romney gains ground on Obama after strong debate

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Stupidity is taking anything from Daily Kos seriously.

Left-leaning media that disagree :

First post-debate poll shows Romney closing the gap on Obama

Romney gains ground on Obama after strong debate

Sounds like you didn't read the first article.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Sounds like you didn't read the first article.

I don't read the Daily Kos.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

I don't read the Daily Kos.

I was referring to the Guardian article.