Presidental Debate One

The president sets the government's agenda.

The stimulus, the ACA, the repeated rounds of quantitative easing, the middle east peace process, and the over regulation of the free markets all influence the job market. The president may not have "wave a magic wand" influence over these things but to suggest that his actions and policies play no role is absurd. This is his economy, he owns it, it stinks!

herdurr i already said something about that.

hold up real quick, there it be:


In fact...you QUOTED it.

Sounds like Romney and his friends are intent on just that - provided he gets elected.

Yeah cause we're not on the path to war with Iran right now.

If it's inevitable, your choice:

Unilaterally - Romney

Multilaterally - Obama

Well, it won't be me because I live in Kansas. So while I will probably vote to voice my opinion, this state is locked up and mathmatically my vote just doesn't count.

Please answer, was there anything new said that made up your mind?

And please elaborate.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote two people in the same post.

No. To me their is only one imminent threat to America. Not Global Warming. Not Gays. Not abortion. Not Health Care reform. It's the debt. For my vote (which admittedly doesn't matter in Kansas) Obama needs to tell me specifically what he will do in the next four years to make sure that not only a huge pile of new debt won't be added but that he will do something to whittle away at the existing debt (or grow the economy to such an extreme that the debt will matter less relatively). He has added a lot of debt so far. How in the world can I believe he will cut the debt when so much was added in his first term?

Likewise, I need a plan from Romney. He keeps saying the same thing, using the same key words and talking points, but hasn't put out a concrete PLAN on what he will specifically cut. I don't agree with the Ryan plan, but at least he has the guys to put something out there. As funny as the whole PBS thing was since it's .0000001% of the budget I was amazed that the guy actually put something out there. Because lets face it, if you say "I'm going to cut defense" then defense contractors don't vote for you. If you say "I'm going to cut education" then teachers don't vote for you. So its easier to just say "We need to be fiscally responsible" without giving specifics, but that just isn't good enough for me this time.

If you guys are so above it all, why are you here?

Well Obama won't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, so I guess we'll just look the other way while it gets wiped off the map.

that is different from mandating...providing policies that influence and entice are not the same as going to every gas company and saying "you have to sell premium at 7.55 9/10ths/gallon." Which is what you and everyone that thinks like you are trying to impose. I dont say they didn't play a role...i said they dont control what the pricing ultimately ends up to be. The president is also not the only governing body within this country that sets,approves,and enacts agendas,please udnerstand that we are a THREE BRANCH government which has vetoing power and also has the ability to rewrite or rework legislation at ANY POINT within those three branches. Obama may be 1/3rd of that process but there are 2/3rds of it that do absolutely nothing and only attempt to obstruct any progress.

did the Isrealis start smoking weed?

in what reality are they not there?

Sorry, Obama had all three houses the first 2 years of his presidency. As I said before, he basically got everything he wanted with the exception of the "Dream Act". His policies all failed.

If he was a plumber who didn't fix your clogged toilet, would you really re-hire him?

If you pass the first two quarters in a semester and somehow your professor vows to fail you and suddenly you fail the last two quarters and ultimately fail the semester, was it your fault?

maybe that irrelevant example fits better. because it is more irrelevantly related to the actual problem at hand. And "failure" is subjective and easily twisted and thrown out by anyone. If it where a failure we would be further slipping into another "Great Depression" which by the way was caused by the free market crashing suddenly. So please, tell me how electing someone who would strip away all "maybe destructive" yet not proven to be legislation and replacing it with horrible and proven destructive legislation will possibly make our situation suddenly better? Cause that's what you are advocating.

edit: and did you just say three houses?

Personally, I think the solution is offering a tax break for employers that hire new people, but what the hell do I know.

Stagnation has occurred because demand for goods is down which is because consumer confidence is down because unemployment is high and personal debt is high.

Cut businesses a tax break to hire some new people they have been holding back on, those people have money to spend and pay taxes and whammo recession over.

I just don't think raising or lowering taxes on the evil 1% are going to have any effect whatsoever. Except on them personally.

He did provide specifics in the debate and even more is available on his website if you're willing to do the research.

If you are indeed interested in facts, you should also know that a great deal of the debt accumulated to Obama was a result of policies put in place in the previous administration.


This article further articulates the contributions of the two presidents to adding to the debt:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html

How many times do I have to point out that this is a lie before people stop saying it?
The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

Er... I meant branches. Real incomes have fallen by ~4k for the average family, that isn't debatable, its a fact. You can try and chalk it up to anything else beside Obama's policies, but to somehow insist it had nothing to do with the past 4 years and was the final delayed result of 25 years of "trickle down economics" is nothing more than you sticking your head in the sand.
EDIT: no i mean houses, Senate, House of Reps and the White one.

No, It's because i use math and facts and knowledge that minimum wage is 7.25 and that people arent getting hired for much higher than that/hour unless they have masters/doctorates in Healthcare,Social Work,and Technology (the three main industries that are hiring and paying). You are shoving a rock in front of your cave so you can't see the light outside of your little dark hole creeping ever closer as the day goes on.

Untill Romney actually puts down any solid ground this isn't the best example since it puts you between the plumber who didn't fix it vs the guy telling you hes a plumber but refuses to show his credentials. Atleast you have some idea what to expect from the first one where the second one could just steal your socks and run away.

Edit: Obviously the best choice would be to go somewhere else for your plumbing needs but in this case it's the devil you know or rolling the dice at this point.

The debt is high, that is not in doubt.

But is it as much a concern of the GOP as it is to you?

I don't believe that they are at all inclined to reduce or pay back this debt, but remind us regularly that, simply, the debt is high.

This is nothing to ignore (as I've posted elsewhere):

Then judging by that chart he needs to tell me:

A) When will he be rescending the bush tax cuts?
B) When will he be ending the wars?
C) Will he continue with recovery measures?

I suppose the TARP/Fanny/Freddie issue was a one time thing (hopefully) and he has spoken about economic recovery which is at least trending the right way although still in bad shape. But I've heard the "I'm bringing the boys back home" speech before. And nobody has the balls to say "Look at this chart. The Bush tax cuts are responsible for half of the deficit so we need to cut them out."

What is he going to do to take away the red line? The light blue line? The orange line? If you can tell me how.....and do it with a straight face while telling me that taking away the yellow line and blue line won't adversely affect the economy....that's what I want to hear.

Misleading...

You don't count the first year why? If we are to follow their logic we would need to count the first year of the next presidency before we tally the totals, so why would we even bother comparing the two now? Wouldn't a fairer comparison be the first 3 years of the Bush administration and the first 3 years of the Obama administration? Of course not cause that makes Obama look bad.

Obama has added as much debt in his 4 years as Bush did in his 8.

To find each other, of course!

I never claimed to be above it; I certainly try my best to stay out of it, however. I see comments like "I love how Obama smirks when Romney is speaking", "Obama doesn't need to pwn [sic] Romney, he's doing it himself", and... I just take note. So if I see someone making a generalization, a generalization I agree with, and only that -- a generalization, not a personal attack towards anyone here specifically -- I just want to say, "you're not alone", more or less.

If you don't get the feeling that people across the country, and also here, are treating this like a popularity contest with a personal investment attached; that people are treating this like they're less watching two potential Heads of State, and more squaring off their own rigorously trained Pokemon against a bitter rival, then... maybe you want to argue with me? Or perhaps even agree. I don't know.

To answer your question, I feel I have just as much a right to post here as anyone else, and I don't see you explaining yourself so why should I?

INB4 apparently Obama didn't...

At the risk of sounding glib, neither will give you these answers. Obama won't because he hasn't (and, thanks to the Republican party, doesn't need to), and Romney won't because if he were actually going to bring up that chart and say "Bush Tax Cuts and current wars are The Problem and they're done on my watch," the election would have been over months ago.

You don't want me to count the first years - that makes Reagan, HW Bush, and W worse offenders - well, not exactly in W's case, since Clinton left him with a surplus.

But mostly, those first years are excluded because the budgets for those years were established under the previous administration, e.g., when President Reagan entered the White House, the national debt was roughly $840B, but President Carter left Reagan with a $2B deficit, which Reagan had no control over.


In those 4 years, $1.2T was left over from W, and let's not forget the economy saving stimulus money.

I'm just here because every 3 months or so I get the itch to play XI and this was on the front page. Reading these posts makes it less likely for me to reup than reading posts about gameplay. And yes! To find each other!

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to respect, tolerate, or shut up about anyone else's opinion.

It protects you from government action based on what you say and from government censorship, within judicially malleable constraints.

Freedom of speech does not mean that I cannot call you an ignorant *** for saying something ... Ignorant and assholish, to keep it simple.

A few pages late, but Jesus ***.

welcome to my world from 6 pages back D: