So tell us mark, how many of those "fair-minded" analysts ever helped
struggling businesses succeed, or turned an Olympics drowning in debt and
scandal into a rousing success, or took a state in serious red ink and turned
that around? Probably none of them, yet you'll take their word over
someone who has succeeded over and over and over again.Those that
can, do. Those that can't, spew a lot of criticism and make excuses.
I'll take the guy who can and does.
See this is what I don't get about you guys, DSB. "One more thing - if
you think buying more art and media should be a priority "When did I
ever say, or even imply, that the Feds should be buying more art, or that it
should be a priority? I didn't. I didn't even make an argument of
whether PBS funding should remain in place or not. I said that if Mitt Romney
presents that as his only idea to deal with a sixteen trillion dollar debt in a
debate then he is not serious. And I don't think he is. I'm very aware that he is counting on a surging economy to offset his
other propositions. But there is is no indication his plan would cause the
growth he needs. His plan does not deal with the debt, just tax restructuring.
And nothing indicates that will create 12 million jobs, no matter what he says.
Many fair minded studies have shown that he will have to make large
cuts in things like the mortgage deduction just to pay for his tax cuts for the
Re: mark Salt Lake City, UT'Lets debate' comments are spot
on. One man was prepared when he came to the first presidential debate. The
other guy? Al Gore suggests that Denver's high altitude may have been the
cause of his lethargy.Mitt has proven he is good with finances.
Obama has proven that he can't balance a checkbook.
To mark,I suppose you know that Romney is not serious about dealing
with the budget because he wasn't serious about the budgets of either Bain
Capital or the companies in which they invested. Or, because he wasn't
serious about turning around the Olympics, or because he wasn't serious
about solving the debt of Massachusetts. Oh wait...At least on
economics, we have one candidate with a history of success and doing what he
promises, and one with a history of broken promises and a horribly stalled
economy. Anyone who thinks Obama is more serious, or more capable of addressing
the budget and debt than Romney is monumentally deluded and living in denial of
their clear and proven respective records.One more thing - if you
think buying more art and media should be a priority at a time of looming
bankruptcy - no matter how little the cost - I seriously doubt your seriousness
about getting our national spending and debt under control.
@mark - if you're going to mock Romney with your "He will reduce
[taxes]. He won't reduce [taxes]. What is it?" pretend confusion, you
should inform yourself about his plan, and the concept of fixing the debt by
fixing the economy. If you are indeed informed, then you should stop
regurgitating the dishonest DNC talking points about how closing loopholes and
deductions alone won't make up the revenue difference from lowering taxes.
Romney never said that alone would do it. He's been talking about economic
benefits of creating a vibrant economy.And, what part of
Romney's explanation about the lack of specifics didn't you
understand? Everything's on the table until both sides get together to iron
out bi-partisan agreement about the cuts. Further, do you think there is any
combination of specific cuts he could cite that would not result in aggressive
spin and attacks by Obama and the media - even if his cuts were the same ones
Democrats might suggest? Not that they would be, but it would not matter, and I
suspect you know it. You require much more specificity from Romney
than anyone has ever required from Obama.
You know Lets debate, I'm not even going to respond to your incredibly rude
post. DSB, is that Governor Romney's plan? To cut 2500
programs? Are there even that many federal programs? But anyway, like I said,
Mitt Romney is not serious about dealing with the federal budget. If the only
proposition he can put forth to deal with the debt is that old conservative
canard PBS funding you know he is not serious. And by the way, DSB,
you know nothing about my thinking on the debt. If my thinking on the issue had
been shared by politicians we would have no debt at this point. Unfortunately
the Republicans got into office.
@mark - one thing that you and Obama conveniently leave out of the calculations,
and I suspect it's intentional as you pretend to be confused, is that
growing the economy creates more jobs, including more higher-paying jobs, and
there is a tremendous increase in tax revenue when that happens.In
keeping with standard Democrat economic philosophy, you and Obama believe there
is one giant pie that must be cut up and proportioned. You can't increase
funding for one entity without slivering away a piece from someone else. The
rich have disproportionate slices, so we must take from their slices to help
others. If you decrease taxes, the cuts to loopholes and deductions cannot
cover the difference. With this philosophy, Mitt's math indeed does not
work.I suppose it's incomprehensible to people like you, Obama,
and everyone else who regurgitates the "bad math" argument, that it is
actually possible to make more pies. That's why you leave out Mitt's
oft-repeated claim that in addition to closing loopholes and deductions, his
plan satisfies budget needs by growing the economy and creating more taxpayers
who pay taxes on higher income.
Hey mark - if you cut 2500 unnecessary or wishful items that each account for
less than .01% of the budget, you've cut the budget by 25%. Who said
Romney only wanted to cut PBS?Why not just cut nothing since any one
thing is such a small piece of the puzzle? Your kind of thinking is why our
nation may very well go bankrupt before the debt problem is fixed.
@mark - thank you very much for proving my point. Romney says he'll cut
taxes, then Obama and his minions make up details of how it would work, and call
Romney a liar for not going along with their made-up math. I'm sorry that
so many people aren't smart enough to understand how you can restructure
loopholes and deductions, and therefore lower tax RATES without lowering the tax
BURDEN on higher income Americans. Someone who says "He will
reduce them. He won't reduce them. What is it?" seems pretty easily
confused about something that's not really that complex. Then,
if you do something that actually stimulates the economy rather than merely
zombifies it as Obama has done, then the additional working people and higher
incomes create additional tax revenue that starts to correct the deficit and
debt.Clearly people like Obama and mark think we have one giant pie
in America, that needs to be proportioned correctly to make things work. With
that philosophy, you can't financially meet one need without taking slivers
from someone else. Romney believes Americans can create more pies,
and that solves the problem.
"Let me RE-STATE what Mitt said - THERE WILL BE NO TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
AMERICANS! Is that clear?" Well, no patriot, it isn't
clear. In a debate in February Governor Romney said that he was
"going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including
the top 1 percent."Now he says, "I will not reduce the taxes
paid by high-income Americans."He will reduce them. He
won't reduce them. What is it?Romney's plan clearly calls
for tax cuts across the board, just like the President claimed, and just like
Romney has said. Romney says he will offset the reductions using
cuts in "loopholes". But what "loopholes"? He doesn't say.
Now Governor Romney also says he will deal with the debt (and this
is after dealing with the huge reduction of revenues caused by his tax cuts),
and how will he deal with the debt? How's he going to do it? He's
going to cut the less then .01% of the budget that goes to PBS. Mitt
Romney is not serious about dealing with the debt.
I rather enjoyed the debate, seeing Pres Obama have to defend his policies
against the real Mitt instead of the caricature the Democrats have imagined he
was and were campaigning against. The President had to own his miserable record
and was rather surprised to be called on his mistakes. He isn't used to
that, and it showed.Now, for the crowd who are not able to see how
raising employment is the key, here is an analogy. You have a group of people
drawing unemployment/welfare/food stamps because they aren't employed. You
have another group who are employed, paying taxes and not receiving the
unemployment/welfare/food stamps. Take five from the first group and get them
jobs. They aren't receiving, but are now contributing. No outlays is a
savings, and their contributions are adding to the tax base. More income to the
Treasury, less out go. See? The revenues are greater, the expenditures are
smaller. Understand the concept now? Mitt wants to raise
employment, President Obama wants to increase expenditures, all in the name of
compassion. But who is more compassionate? Employment is better then welfare.
"Please enlighten us all about the times when Romney said he would create a
$5 Trillion burden on the budget. He didn't."-lets debate"The claim is based on a study done by the Tax Policy Center, a
nonpartisan group that has analyzed the tax plans of the candidates. The center
examined Romney’s proposals for a 20 percent reduction in all federal
income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the
estate tax and other tax reductions.The center estimated that
altogether, the lost revenues would total $480 billion by 2015. The Obama
campaign adds up the cost over a decade and winds up with $4.8 trillion, which
it then rounds up to $5 trillion."-politifact The tax cut
Governor Romney has proposed equal almost 5 trillion. He is hoping to offset
this by closing "loopholes". He has given hardly any indication of what
deductions and "loopholes" he would eliminate. That is the issue.
Yes, he dove to the center to avoid the right wing.
re:InstereoMitt answered your tax question - weren't you paying
attention? Let me RE-STATE what Mitt said - THERE WILL BE NO TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
AMERICANS! Is that clear? Small business does NOT count as rich either. Sorry.
Also what Mitt said was he wasn't going to borrow from China to pay for
PBS. I suppose borrowing more from China is just fine for liberals but better
ask your kids and grand kids since they will be the ones footing that bill for
generations.. So yes - Mitt isn't going to run our debt as high
as mount Everest as your socialist president is content to do - thank heaven for
sanity!! Finally I have no idea what your liberal media comment is about? Do
Craig Clark - I agree, whenever you put your trust in a man, you'll be
disappointed. I'm disappointed in how Romney, who chose Ryan as
his VP and who came with an economic plan that calls for tax cuts for the rich
that over time would amount to a 5 trillion reduction in revenue, says it
won't add to the deficit and how he can plausibly say he hasn't talked
about it. He did talk about the 47% but that was only to rich donors and not
meant for the 100% of all people he has since claimed he's going to
represent. He wants to balance the budget with cuts to NPR/PBS and Big Bird and
openly says that but why when it only represents .012% of the budget. As for believing the "liberal" media, let's see, the media is
owned by the largest most conservative organizations with many large
conservative corporations paying the bills with advertising. Do you really think
they would have a house divided approach? I don't.
"President Barack Obama's forces had hinted that all they needed was
one good punch to knock out Romney"Oh boy - this was one of
those moments where you squash your rival into the turf on prime time ESPN! Yes
sir - this was the presidential candidate vs the amateur... the White House
amateur. Geez, what a thumping! If this were a football game the score would
have been 42-0 at HALF TIME for Mitt!! What this really was was the exposing of
Barack Obama in front of the entire nation. The imposter who slid into the White
House finally had to play hard ball and the man looked and acted like a college
freshman at the black board doing a calculus problem in front of 200 grad
students. YIKES!! The king has no clothes ... but we all knew that didn't
Yes. He changed the game by cheating and sneaking some notes from his pocket
onto the dais.
Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UT"...and why not? He's changed just
about everything else imaginable during the campaign?"The first
presidential debate reminded me of the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.
The voters compared Romney to Obama and saw the same thing Al Gore did. Obama
looked like the rarefied air in Denver had deprived him of oxygen.If
Obama disagreed with Mitt Romney for heaven's sake he should have opened
his eyes and his mouth and said something.
Romeny this week took a big step in creating credibility when on FoxNews he
admitted that his statement about the 47% was wrong. After days of defending
the statement, Mitt has had a rebirth of sorts, and now believes and admitts his
statment was out of place.Why the change in heart... polls,
political advisors, the left wing liberal media, a genuine reconsideration...
who knows. Does he really in his heart believe this... I hope so. Or is this
just another case of saying one thing for one audience, and another for a
different audience... who knows.Bottom line though is Mit will be
able to do far less than he promised if alected, and Obama far less damage even
if he is re-elected. It is sixes. The COTUS is a beutiful thing that has self
correcting built into it. No one group should ever dominate the political tone
of this country.
Thurston Howell III has said for the past 18 months that if elected he would cut
all income tax rates by 20%. He has not said how he intends to make up the
difference in revenue to balance the budget.To do so by closing deductions would
require elimination all deductions for charities, church tithings, home loans,
employee health insurance, and to make drastic cuts to education, Medicaid,
Medicare, and Social Security. On the other hand, he could be advocating cutting
the military and defense budgets to make up the difference but I doubt it. Do
KJB1 7.8% unemployment may be the lowest of Obama's term, but it is still
very bad. This number does not count the 23 million that have quit looking for
jobs. The real unemployment rate is over 15%.From my days in
school, full employment, that signals a healthy, growing economy was considered
to be just under 3%. Obama's economy has a long way to go.
I was just wondering what kind of a man throws his kids under the bus by telling
everyone they lie, and does it for the trite purpose of chalking up a zinger in
the debate?Sometimes it seems Mitt says things to benefit himself
without regard or consideration for how it harms others, even those supposedly
closest to him. That does not strike me as a desirable trait in a President,
much less an avowed Christian.
The real Obama was unveiled during the debate. He had no teleprompter, to
canned speech written by someone else, and no idea or ideas. Obema was out of
his element and was a mere shell of of what the media has made him. Without the
media, he'd still be the Jr. Senator from Illinois.To sum it
all up. The Emperor has no clothing. And that became really apparent.
I'd not like to be Obama running on his record.
WestGranger West Valley City, UtahAnd the real Romney is who? No
one could recognize the man on television Wednesday night. He was re-bottled,
re-packaged, and re-introduced in a media campaign worthy of Madison Avenue.I yearn for the old Romney who I've come to know. If he has
changed, then let me at least have a few weeks trying to get to know the new
Romney before the old Romney re-emerges again.
Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah "I don't believe everything
I read, especially when it comes to unemployment numbers. Anybody who thinks the
7.8% number is genuine isn't in touch with reality . . . "So why do you believe the numbers when they were high but don't believe
them now? Don't you wonder how these numbers are determined? And what is
your source of inforation if you don't believe everything you read?It always strikes me as odd that conservatives complain about the
mainstream media but have nothing to say about the right-wing media. It only
confirms in my mind that many people, particularly people "severely
conservative", seek out sources to confirm their prejudices and never
question what they read or hear. It's as if they neglected developing
critical thinking skills because they learned to take it on faith that their
sources were giving them the truth.But then, there is the animosity
with which they hold the opposition and therefore want to believe the worst
because it satisfies an ignorance within themselves. Even people of the Left
could not accept the work of George W. Bush dealing with AIDS in Africa.
‘Mitt Romney changes the game during Wednesday's presidential
debate’============ ...and why not?He's changed just about everything else imaginable during the campaign?
Instereo,"....I think many of us who are LDS are projecting on
Romney what we believe he should say and if he's elected, we'll be
very disappointed in what he does."==========Our
faith must be in Christ, not in man.I too wonder how Obama could
prepare to debate Mendacious Mitt. His views turn on a dime. Romney came for an
ambush and Obama came for a debate. I think the President knows better now.
Nothing Romney says can be taken at face value. Regardless of what he says
today, you just don't know what he'll say tomorrow. What the President
needs to remember in preparing for the next meeting is to not take the bait of
playing a wholly reactive role. He's up against a corporate shark.
Romney has that uncanny ability to look you straight in the eye and deny that he
said what he said last week and tell you the exact opposite of what he said
yesterday.It's called salesmanship.
Can anyone say Etch-a-Sketch?
Red Headed Stranger Billy Bobs, TXWell, it's very clear that
you liked George W. Bush. Keeping that in mind, four years ago everything was
fine except it was 2008 and within a few months the bottom fell out. This was
before Obama was even elected, so it is important to remember the timeline.Although growth has not been such that we are back to pre-2008
conditions, the stock market is soaring and things are getting better -- unless
you simply are opposed to Obama and are in love with Romney. If that's the
case, then there is no discussion to be had. Things got really bad
in 2008. Congress did little to improve the situation. In 2010 a Republican
House made things worse. As for borrowing money, if I remember
correctly, there were two unfunded wars continuing to go and a massive tax cut
that was supposed to end after the current administration took office. I know
it's boring, but the particulars are important in understanding how we got
here from there.
The fictitious Romney created by the media disappeared and in the debate as
voters saw the real Romney knock Obama's socks off. Excuses, excuses for
Obama. Nothing is every his fault.
@WHAT NOW?"Which romney?"You keep repeating that
question as if repetition will make it relevant.Anyone actually
paying attention can see that Obama swishes around as much, or more, as
anyone.(Reagan changed is mind too - it is not a criminal thing to do)The real concern is that Obama campaign surrogates are blatant liars
(particularly Axelrod and Cutter).@InstereoActually I am not
LDS and I think you should more concerned about what Harry Reid does - which is
clearly NOT the image that most LDS people I know wish to "project"
To InstereoPlease enlighten us all about the times when Romney said
he would create a $5 Trillion burden on the budget. He didn't. Obama and
his willing media accomplices have done their own math to project that narrative
onto Romney's campaign, and have apparently duped a lot of gullible people
into believing it has always been part of Romney's plan. Now Romney
correctly claims he never said that, and they pretend he has changed his plan.
And you fall for it.If Mitt's history holds true, he'll
turn a failing economy into a successful economy. He'll take something
that's flatlining and make it grow. Yeah - we LDS people would
really be disappointed if Mitt does what his record shows he can do.
Re: KJB1 Eugene, OR"And I'm sure that the DN will give us a
screaming headline about this morning's unemployment level being at
7.8%."I don't believe everything I read, especially when it
comes to unemployment numbers. Anybody who thinks the 7.8% number is genuine
isn't in touch with reality, and that number doesn't reflect how many
people have given up looking for work.Our economy is on a caffeine
high and ALL the economists say we're facing serious trouble. The liberals
just hope it doesn't happen until AFTER November 6th.
After watching the debate I wondered how Pres. Obama could prepare to debate
Romney. I mean if Pres. Obama pressed on an issue that Romney had stated and
supported during his campaign, Romney would change his position or say he
didn't say that or make some other excuse or wouldn't answer with
anything of substance. He looked good doing that but I was left wondering what
does he really believe. I think many of us who are LDS are projecting on Romney
what we believe he should say and if he's elected, we'll be very
disappointed in what he does.
@ I AM LDS 2 - so, you don't like what Mitt said about the 47%, but think
the right thing for him to do is stand by his horrible statement so his big-name
supporters won't have their feelings hurt? Why don't you just be
honest and admit that you're disappointed he apologized for his comment
because standing behind it would have been devastating to his campaign?Romney's 47% comment was a bad mistake, and he was right to apologize for
it.BTW - what's Obama remorseful about? That he hasn't
explained his awesome policies well enough, which are always right for the
people, but that we're just too stupid to understand and support without
his improved explanations. I've yet to hear acknowledgment of any other
error by Obama.At least one of them is man enough to own up to his
Say No to BO,"For Obama to engage in debate fact-checking would
be a serious mistake. His own performance during the past four years is
painfully apparent to Americans...."==========A
little fact-checking of what was said in the debate doesn't make me
nervous. I think it would be good for both sides.
In an Ipsos/Reuters poll taken right after the debate, Obama improved his
favorability rating with independent voters while Romney did best with...other
Republicans. Among independents, Romney's favorability has remained
unchanged.And I'm sure that the DN will give us a screaming
headline about this morning's unemployment level being at 7.8%.
That's the lowest level since Obama took office.
For Obama to engage in debate fact-checking would be a serious mistake. His own
performance during the past four years is painfully apparent to Americans. The
people who watch the debates only need to look at their own lives in the last
four years to decide how well Obama has done. That's the real
fact-checking; not the spin.
We all know it was the altitude. It's impossible for your body to adjust
when you go from an airplane "up to 5,000 feet".
Obama isn't the same man he was in 2008, and in the opinion of Democratic
strategist James Carville didn't bring his A-game. Even the liberal news
media was left with no option but to call it the way the undecided voters saw
it. Obama had the look of defeat.Maybe, as Al Gore suggested, the
high elevation in Denver deprived him of oxygen.
In an interview with Hannity on Fox, Mitt Romney apologized (sort of) for his
47% comment, that his top backers went to great lengths to defend!Romney said, ""Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not
thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're
going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said.
"In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."Good thing Chritie, Limbaugh, and countless others spent so much effort
trying to convince us all how RIGHT his comment was!So Romney
published a book recently, "No Apology: the Case for American
Greatness". This was his snarky way of taking Obama to task for
"apologizing" for America (which, of course, Obama didn't do).I think Romney's next book should be "No Apology: How to
Denigrate Half of Americans and Make Your Fellow Republicans Look Like
Fools".I also think Jon Huntsman's observation about
Mitt's "weathervane" characteristics were spot on!Jon,
where are you now? We miss you?
Oh yeah, one more thing. Does it bother you that even almost four years after
he became president that he still blames George Bush for everything? It is
almost as if he wants people to think that Bush is still president and that
Obama is running against the incumbent! I would think that after four years he
would start to take responsibility. But, nope, he is still staring at his
Questions to ask oneself when voting:Am I better off than I was four
years ago, or are you just treading water?Has your home gained value
or have you gotten a raise?Does your raise help cover the extra
costs of gasoline and food?Does it bother you that the current
administration has borrowed 16,900 for every man, woman and child in four years,
even after Obama said Bush was "unpatriotic" for borrowing less money in
eight?Does it bother you that even though the president promised to
shut down Guantanamo Bay he hasn't really done it yet?Does it
bother you that unemployment has never really gotten below eight percent, and
that the only reason it isn't higher is that government keeps excluding
long term unemployed?Like the vice president said, the middle class
has been buried for four years. Mitt has actually employed people. He helped
turn around businesses. Businesses that created goods and services that people
actually bought, paid taxes, and employed people. Please, beyond SpaceX and
killing Bin Ladin, point out one thing pre or post presidential that Obama
accomplished (GM was a boondogle)
Well done Mitt. Obama Gone 01-20-13