VP Debate

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Enjoyed the debate. I enthusiastically support Ryans premium support plan. But I'm still waiting for a responsible and credible tax plan from Romney. So im still up in the air and just a very slight lean towards the challengers.

Why do you think they changed the language from "vouchers" (which is what it is), to "premium support plan?"

[SoCalBronco]

I don't have a problem calling it vouchers either. The concept of a medical voucher doesn't bother me...nor does cost shifting.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Why do you think they changed the language from "vouchers" (which is what it is), to "premium support plan?"

The problem is that you simply don't understand basic economics. Supply and Demand, the cost-curve, and the invisible hand determine prices in a competitive market.

Once you begin to understand these concepts, you may begin to understand that limiting taxpayer liability in the healthcare market reduces costs...unlike Obamacare, which increases taxpayer liability, and only increases healthcare costs.

It's as simple as ECON 101.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The problem is that you simply don't understand basic economics. Supply and Demand, the cost-curve, and the invisible hand determine prices in a competitive market.

Once you begin to understand these concepts, you may begin to understand that limiting taxpayer liability in the healthcare market reduces costs...unlike Obamacare, which increases taxpayer liability, and only increases healthcare costs.

It's as simple as ECON 101.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth, but the liberals don't either see it or agree with doing such a thing. Either way, all of our standard of living will drop, not just those evil rich guys. Obamacare is another example of that.

[Kaylore]

Just wanted to point out that after further review, with the post VP polls fallout coming in, the debate performance from Biden appears to have hurt Obama in key swing states. Romney closed distance with Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada and grew his own lead in Arizona, Florida and Viriginia. Only Colorado showed a negligible move with a .7 shift toward Romney.

Once again, this shows that just talking down and being rude to your opponent, even if it appears you "win" the debate, doesn't necesarrily buy votes. Dems just wanted to revenge for the Romney dominance. They got it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything other than make them feel better about themselves and the candidate. But then, Democrats are more interested in "feeling good" than real results, so this is probably good enough, I guess?

[DomCasual]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Just wanted to point out that after further review, with the post VP polls fallout coming in, the debate performance from Biden appears to have hurt Obama in key swing states. Romney closed distance with Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada and grew his own lead in Arizona, Florida and Viriginia. Only Colorado showed a negligible move with a .7 shift toward Romney.

Once again, this shows that just talking down and being rude to your opponent, even if it appears you "win" the debate, doesn't necesarrily buy votes. Dems just wanted to revenge for the Romney dominance. They got it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything other than make them feel better about themselves and the candidate. But then, Democrats are more interested in "feeling good" than real results, so this is probably good enough, I guess?

YOU'RE UNAMERICAN,,,,,,,,,,,,,

ROMNEY LIES,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

FOOL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Kaylore]

I am curious to see Biden's favorability after the debate. The last poll was pre-debate. I didn't realize, but he had the lowest favorability of any Dem going in. Perhaps that was part of the larger strategy. He knew no one liked him going in so they decided to just brow-beat Ryan so he couldn't get any points across.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

He knew no one liked him going in so they decided to just brow-beat Ryan so he couldn't get any points across.

By reducing the amount of time Ryan could speak Biden limited the number of lies Ryan could tell...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Just wanted to point out that after further review, with the post VP polls fallout coming in, the debate performance from Biden appears to have hurt Obama in key swing states. Romney closed distance with Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada and grew his own lead in Arizona, Florida and Viriginia. Only Colorado showed a negligible move with a .7 shift toward Romney.

Once again, this shows that just talking down and being rude to your opponent, even if it appears you "win" the debate, doesn't necesarrily buy votes. Dems just wanted to revenge for the Romney dominance. They got it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything other than make them feel better about themselves and the candidate. But then, Democrats are more interested in "feeling good" than real results, so this is probably good enough, I guess?

And Republicans are content to sit around like sheep while their candidate fills them full of crap and tells everybody else, "After the election I'll tell you what I plan to do. Don't worry. It'll be great!"

After all, he spent years selling bull**** at Bain. Why stop now?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The problem is that you simply don't understand basic economics. Supply and Demand, the cost-curve, and the invisible hand determine prices in a competitive market.

Once you begin to understand these concepts, you may begin to understand that limiting taxpayer liability in the healthcare market reduces costs...unlike Obamacare, which increases taxpayer liability, and only increases healthcare costs.

It's as simple as ECON 101.

Invisible hand? Yeah, that's what we should base our economic plan on. Spooks. There hasn't been an invisible hand in world economics since the first conglomerate was born. Adam Smith was talking about cobblers in a village, for chrissakes! Take a pill, cupcake.

[Dexter]

Although I still won't be voting for Romney, I found a Republican on a generally liberal section of Reddit, that actually made a lot of sense.

Here is the post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...an_its/c6mjtqi

I'd encourage anyone to give it a read. At least for me, it made SOME sense of why Romney is giving little specifics about his tax plan.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by Dexter

Although I still won't be voting for Romney, I found a Republican on a generally liberal section of Reddit, that actually made a lot of sense.

Here is the post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...an_its/c6mjtqi

I'd encourage anyone to give it a read. At least for me, it made SOME sense of why Romney is giving little specifics about his tax plan.

That's pretty much it. This hearkens back to Bush nailing Kerry for "voting for" the war billl "before voting against it." It's not that Kerry was a flip-flopper, it was that they take straw polls before stuff hits the floor. Bush sold like Kerry was confused and the public bought it. Really it was just the nuances of how a bill evolves and elected officials change their positions on it depending on what is added and removed.

Romney is staying vague because there are any number of both loophols and cuts to deal with and getting into specifics gives something specific for the Obama campaign to attack. By the same token, most of that stuff gets brokered in congress anyway so even when you have an idea of specifics, the details are often worked, and re-worked as both houses get their hands on it. What happens is every sitting president, regardless of party, arms his opponent with rhetoric of "failed promises" when any specific of his plan doesn't go through - even when the overall scop of the plan was successful. Romney has decided not to play guess work with the unknowns. The problem is does that make him look like he's just paying lip-service and over-promising, or will him simplifying to overal objective avoid boredome and policy speak?

We'll see, I guess.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

That's pretty much it. This hearkens back to Bush nailing Kerry for "voting for" the war billl "before voting against it." It's not that Kerry was a flip-flopper, it was that they take straw polls before stuff hits the floor. Bush sold like Kerry was confused and the public bought it. Really it was just the nuances of how a bill evolves and elected officials change their positions on it depending on what is added and removed.

Romney is staying vague because there are any number of both loophols and cuts to deal with and getting into specifics gives something specific for the Obama campaign to attack. By the same token, most of that stuff gets brokered in congress anyway so even when you have an idea of specifics, the details are often worked, and re-worked as both houses get their hands on it. What happens is every sitting president, regardless of party, arms his opponent with rhetoric of "failed promises" when any specific of his plan doesn't go through - even when the overall scop of the plan was successful. Romney has decided not to play guess work with the unknowns. The problem is does that make him look like he's just paying lip-service and over-promising, or will him simplifying to overal objective avoid boredome and policy speak?

We'll see, I guess.

Well said.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

Romney is staying vague because there are any number of both loophols and cuts to deal with...

Well, there's that and then there's also the obvious fact than any plan that will actually work (and by "work" I mean increase revenues enough to offset spending increases) will require cuts that will hurt the middle class. It's not like they're going to admit that their plan is a fairy tale.

[Kaylore]

It's not a fairy tale. But you are right in that there are no easy right answers, and some of the loopholes being removed will hurt upper-middle income workers. These loopholes are things people have been depending on to keep more money. Closing those simplifies the tax code and streamlines the process, but it also means less money back.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Invisible hand? Yeah, that's what we should base our economic plan on. Spooks. There hasn't been an invisible hand in world economics since the first conglomerate was born. Adam Smith was talking about cobblers in a village, for chrissakes! Take a pill, cupcake.

You don't believe in a free-market economy, huh?


That explains a lot about you. Total government control is what you advocate. That makes you a Communist. Ask Stalin, Communism doesn't work, and never will. Why? Because Communism does not take into account human behavior, or basic economics. While you would attempt to create a Communist utopia, in which everything is in control of the government, it would benefit NO ONE.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

It's not a fairy tale. But you are right in that there are no easy right answers, and some of the loopholes being removed will hurt upper-middle income workers. These loopholes are things people have been depending on to keep more money. Closing those simplifies the tax code and streamlines the process, but it also means less money back.

This also presumes that Congress, especially the Right side of the aisle, will actually get off their asses and do their jobs. I see no reason to expect that.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by pricejj

You don't believe in a free-market economy, huh?


That explains a lot about you. Total government control is what you advocate. That makes you a Communist. Ask Stalin, Communism doesn't work, and never will. Why? Because Communism does not take into account human behavior, or basic economics. While you would attempt to create a Communist utopia, in which everything is in control of the government, it would benefit NO ONE.

See? This is why I won't argue with you. Specious argument. Sophomoric use of straw man. Trying to deflect a valid argument by twisting into an ad hominem attack. You got nothin'.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

It's not a fairy tale.

It is the way it's being sold. Just as the Obama plan can't work only on the back of the "rich", the Romney/Ryan plan can't work without massive revenue increases that will have to hit the middle class. The biggest difference, IMO, is that Obama's plan would hit the "rich" harder than Romney/Ryan's. And I'm okay with that. I also think there's a higher risk with Romney/Ryan that we'd end up in a major conflict with Iran, increase defense spending, bring back torture, and allow religion to bleed into government, among other things. As mediocre to poor as Obama has been, Romney/Ryan isn't worth the risk.

[Kaylore]

I thought I'd post this too. The VP debate apparently turned a lot of women off.

There's been a noticeable uptick - especially in the last week and half - among women voters switching their vote to Romney. Apparently not only did Romney sell it well but I was listening to a talk radio show that mentioned man women saw Biden as "every arrogant man who wouldn't listen to you or let you speak."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...obama/1634791/

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48%, while he leads by 12 points among men.

So I say, again, Dems can prented that Biden's rude behavior was "so awesome" and made them feel good because they got to watch him bully a Republican, but it is now clear that all it did was make the base feel good and hurt their broader cause.

If it's election day and Women are tied and men are still favoring Romney, Romney will win.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Kaylore

I thought I'd post this too. The VP debate apparently turned a lot of women off.

There's been a noticeable uptick - especially in the last week and half - among women voters switching their vote to Romney. Apparently not only did Romney sell it well but I was listening to a talk radio show that mentioned man women saw Biden as "every arrogant man who wouldn't listen to you or let you speak."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...obama/1634791/



So I say, again, Dems can prented that Bidens rude behavior was "so awesome" and made them feel good because they got to watch him bully a Republican, but it is no clear that all it did was make the base feel good and hurt their broader cause.

If it's election day and Women are tied and men are still favoring Romney, Romney will win.

It is highly doubtful Biden's actions made those still on the fence want to vote for Obama and himself. Acting arrogant when most people feel politicians are enough of that as it is is not a winning debate strategy other than to make the bitter, hateful yellow dog democrats chest bump themselves silly.

[Kaylore]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

This also presumes that Congress, especially the Right side of the aisle, will actually get off their asses and do their jobs. I see no reason to expect that.

You're probably right. A lot of time the sitting Prez's plans get screwed most by people in his own party because they think they'll get what they want or that because he's in their party they have to accept what they feed him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

See? This is why I won't argue with you. Specious argument. Sophomoric use of straw man. Trying to deflect a valid argument by twisting into an ad hominem attack. You got nothin'.

That describes just about every right-wing pinhead on this board.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

See? This is why I won't argue with you. Specious argument. Sophomoric use of straw man. Trying to deflect a valid argument by twisting into an ad hominem attack. You got nothin'.

, yes you are so above that and never do that yourself. A part of me almost hopes Obama wins just so the liberals around here find out just how much Obama wants to redistribute and make "fair" the country. Standard of living for most has gone down as it is, wait if Obama gets 4 more years. I guess you could always blame Bush for it though.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by barryr

, yes you are so above that and never do that yourself.

There you go with the typical rightard "I am rubber - you are glue" comeback.

Show us some examples to support your accusation.