Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Political Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   Romney won the debate - but (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1446110)

G19G20 10-04-2012 01:01

Romney won the debate - but
 
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

Big Mad Dawg 10-04-2012 03:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by G19G20 (Post 19483827)
. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

Well he would have been the second worst “if he had lost” the worst bowed out a while back let’s hope for the last time too. After a while even RP has to come to the conclusion that he just is never going to win but please enjoy your sour grapes drink.

JBnTX 10-04-2012 04:03

Romney just demonstrated what great things the GOP can do without that leech Ron Paul sucking the life out of them.

Faulkner 10-04-2012 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by G19G20 (Post 19483827)
. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could.

Just curious . . . exactly what is Obama not weak at? :whistling:

JFrame 10-04-2012 06:26

Heh...We might have gotten a foretaste of what Obama's strategy in the foreign policy debate will be. He managed to work in a mention of OBL in a domestic policy debate... :upeyes:


.

Fed Five Oh 10-04-2012 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by G19G20 (Post 19483827)
If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

Ron Paul has that title for life. Can y'all imagine what that debate would have looked like with that bumbling idiot Ron Paul up there?:rofl:

Cavalry Doc 10-04-2012 06:38

Romney won the debate, but you still want Paul. The devotion is noted, but simply irrelevant.

There were two guys on the stage last night, and only one of THEM will be the president in 4 months. That may suck for all of us, but that's reality. Keep working through those stages of grief, you'll get there. If you get stuck, some counseling may help.

GAFinch 10-04-2012 06:49

How dare a non-libertarian Republican display working knowledge of macroeconomics, inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government. :burn:

beforeobamabans 10-04-2012 07:01

What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

Goaltender66 10-04-2012 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by beforeobamabans (Post 19484142)
What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates.

OK, so let's go through your bullets.

Quote:

Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions),
First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?

Quote:

that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all,
I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?

Quote:

that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare),
I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. :) ).

Quote:

and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.
It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.
Quote:

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).
The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), and begin to hammer home the idea that these programs are inherently unsustainable...we can shore it up here and there but the end game has to be to terminate them.

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.


Edited in italics above to finish a phrase...sorry about that.

Glock30Eric 10-04-2012 07:35

Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.

JFrame 10-04-2012 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock30Eric (Post 19484215)
Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.


I dunno -- Johnson couldn't even hang in the GOP primaries. To think that he would suddenly become a third leg that schools the others seems delusional.


.

beforeobamabans 10-04-2012 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19484212)
OK, so let's go through your bullets.



First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?


I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?


I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. :) ).


It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.


The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), begin to hammer home the idea that

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.

The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

Snowman92D 10-04-2012 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glock30Eric (Post 19484215)
Where is Gary Johnson?

My guess is he was busy out there in the real world, taking his message to The People, and campaigning for votes. He was probably the featured speaker at the Grand Opening of a new medical marijuana shop in some run-down strip mall. :smoking:

Goaltender66 10-04-2012 08:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by beforeobamabans (Post 19484258)
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

But back in 2008 the argument was that four years of Obama would allow the pendulum to swing very hard to the right and a "true conservative" would emerge.

I'm not sure why the Libertarian Right keeps asking me to let Obama win.

I agree that government spending must decrease, and decrease a lot. The problem however is twofold. This isn't like a SimCity game where you can just push a button and things happen. There are political realities, and as Romney said, 47% of the electorate honestly believe government is there to provide bennies to people. Frankly, four straight years of chronic under/unemployment will do that to people.

So I disagree. The first step is to get the jobs picture fixed, and that necessarily means structural changes to the tax code to incentivize investment and hard work. The second is to put SS/Medicare/Medicaid on a terminal path, but that's not going to happen as long as there are millions of baby boomers out there demanding their stuff (Hell, read posts from Trew2Life for a disturbing view into this mentality). So the unfortunate reality is to try and make the programs solvent in the short term while setting the stage for their eventual demise. Is Romney going to do the latter in one or even two terms? I don't think he *can*, but to me it's fantasy to suggest that anyone else can either.

So the here-and-now reality is we can only do short-term monkeying around with discretionary spending, which seems reasonable to me. I don't think we should be pouring $90 billion into alternative energy, not when Canada is right north of us willing to sell us oil. But what we also *can* do is work to shift the Overton Window and make self-sufficiency more palatable to that 47%. Trouble is, it's a hard sell if a significant portion of that 47% don't have jobs.....

Kirishiac 10-04-2012 08:04

This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

Glock30Eric 10-04-2012 08:10

Think for a minute. Gary Johnson could easily give an education lecture on Obama and Romney with the economy, Gov't going beyond the Constitution's scope, total failure of social policy, and the mess of current forgiven policy.

Everyone knows that Gary is right on those points but we don't want to sacrifice our unlimited pleasure of printing money, broken promises of pension, and policing the world. With that perspective and I don't think we could reverse the current path to the destruction of the America as we know.

series1811 10-04-2012 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirishiac (Post 19484295)
This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

Yeah, pretty much.

douggmc 10-04-2012 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAFinch (Post 19484111)
... inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government. :burn:

The most interesting thing about your post is that it illustrates a common ideological theme of the right, which is using the "over the" comparisons as if the concepts compared are mutually exclusive. It is REALLY appealing and effective to "low information" voters. Unfortunately it is nonsense and a patronizing argument that appeals to emotions more than reality.

douggmc 10-04-2012 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by beforeobamabans (Post 19484142)
What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

Good post! Another way of saying it ... IMO ... is that Romney simply has continued his strategy of saying whatever it takes to appeal the audience at hand. Regardless of whether it conflicts 100% with what he said yesterday or 6 months ago or a year. He has absolutely no shame (not that many politicians do ... but he takes it to a whole new level). The man really has no character or shame to be able to say/claim with a straight face something 100% asymmetric with what he effectively said yesterday.

In summary Romney "won" the debate as he has no character. The sad thing is ... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

series1811 10-04-2012 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by douggmc (Post 19484366)
Good post! Another way of saying it ... IMO ... is that Romney simply has continued his strategy of saying whatever it takes to appeal the audience at hand. Regardless of whether it conflicts 100% with what he said yesterday or 6 months ago or a year. He has absolutely no shame (not that many politicians do ... but he takes it to a whole new level). The man really has no character or shame to be able to say/claim with a straight face something 100% asymmetric with what he effectively said yesterday.

In summary Romney "won" the debate as he has no character. The sad thing is ... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

Well, Obama thanks you for seeing it that way. He was hoping someone would. :supergrin:

ModGlock17 10-04-2012 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by douggmc (Post 19484366)
... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

Here, I do think you are Projecting yourself on to others.

I've discussed the debate with many people this morning, face to face. Every one of them had a handful of specifics, why he won.

So what you are really saying is that Obama got knocked flat and you have no idea how. I'm ok with that. Hope Axelrod feels the same as you.

douggmc 10-04-2012 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModGlock17 (Post 19484390)
...
I've discussed the debate with many people this morning, face to face. Every one of them had a handful of specifics, why he won.

I won't dispute that. There are plenty of people that know policy details and agree with Romney's positions (even though they are still WAY to vague and without detail ... exactly HOW again is he going to do a 20% tax cut across board, add 2 trillion to defense spending, not cut medicare/medicaid/SS (arguably even increase spending), and NOT add dramatically to the debt? Clue: It is IMPOSSIBLE without assuming some magical/mythical growth and/or significant changes to deductions that primarily would impact middle class negatively). But for every one of these people in our circles who know the policies and are intelligent enough to parse them ... there are 10 that think Romney looked "more Presidential" or was "more energetic" or "had nicer hair" .... etc. To these folks, Romney "won" and might have been swayed.

edit: folks like Goaltender66 (post #10 above I believe) are doing thoughtful and legitimate analysis based on their beliefs on policy. While I don't AGREE with some of the beliefs, he is at least making information, policy based arguments. If we were a world full of Goaltender66 critical thinking skills (not necessarily of same conclusions though :) ) ... we would be in much better place. But instead .... we have Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian voting.

beforeobamabans 10-04-2012 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goaltender66 (Post 19484286)
I'm not sure why the Libertarian Right keeps asking me to let Obama win.

It's a reach to attribute this to the entire Libertarian movement when it's one or two guys on PI promoting this aberrant view. I detest Obama and am in mourning over the damage he has done to this country. I have already stated on PI that I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but man, the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.

douggmc 10-04-2012 08:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModGlock17 (Post 19484390)
...
So what you are really saying is that Obama got knocked flat and you have no idea how. I'm ok with that. Hope Axelrod feels the same as you.

Not at all what I'm saying. He got "knocked flat" based primarily on "feel good" types of analysis IMO (e.g., level of energy, aggressiveness, etc.) Romney won the battle for "low information" voters who vote based on stupid **** ... in other words.

Romney was simply MUCH better prepared in the technicalities and superficial things needed to effectively debate. Like he practiced for weeks. It looked like Obama practiced and prepared about 3 days and was just pissed he had to be there.

One pundit made an interesting comment last night that I think was good. It was that presidents (particularly during their first term) tend to live in a "bubble" of "yes men". As a result, they are well out of practice in challenging aggressive opposition. Romney took him off guard in this manner ... in that I don't think any single person has directly challenged Obama face to face like that (facts not necessarily withstanding ... it was perception that counted) since the 2008 election.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:29.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.