[luke warm]

Flem72, on 2012-October-17, 09:51, said:

Just want to air a long-time gripe: Why does no one look these guys in the eyes and say "Tax rate cuts don't have to be "PAID FOR" except in the imagination of a liberal static-model idiot who calculates everything against projections based on the way things are right now"?

it's looking like nothing has to be paid for

awm, on 2012-October-17, 09:52, said:

The specific count of "cut taxes 18 times for small businesses" uses dubious accounting ...

a rose by any other name...

Quote

The particular "model for the nation" statement was only about E-Verify (Romney's right on that)

yes, i know... evidently obama doesn't, though

Quote

Planned Parenthood ... does not provide mammograms.

yes, i know... evidently obama doesn't, though

Quote

Romney's statement that it's down 14% is true

correct again... i think that romney has convinced obama to vote for him, by now... hard to believe obama thinks he won points by telling romney that his pension is bigger... oh no!! not a bigger pension!!

[lalldonn]

Lol lukewarm you are cracking me up. If it was a battle of being correct about technicalities while always missing the larger or important point, you could be president yourself.

And hey, when hrothgar said "talk about obviously biased", he wasn't refering to Candy Crowly...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 09:39, said:

libya will come up at the next debate... i'm surprised nobody mentioned this gem by obama: "When I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse."

say what? then he went on to say that romney could probably get gas back to that price, but at the cost of putting us "back in the same mess"... so let me see if i have this right... lower gas prices because the economy was in the crapper, and the key to getting those prices lower than today is to put it *back* in the crapper? geez

The price of gasoline is largely determined by supply and demand on the global market.

There is plenty that the US government can do to artificially raise the price of gasoline.
However, there isn't much opportunity for additional subsides.

I really don't see any way to achieve significant price decreases without a significant leftwards shift in the demand curve.

Another great depression is one possibility
Moving the economy beyond oil is another

No one in their right mind believes that "drill baby drill" will have any appreciable impact on world wide supply.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 11:00, said:

No one in their right mind believes that "drill baby drill" will have any appreciable impact on world wide supply.

nobody i know is saying that... ex-ceo plan

oops... this just (today) in... gallup has R @ 51%, O @ 45%
likely voters

[PassedOut]

In my opinion the president was vulnerable to second-guessing on the Libya security arrangements (as presidents always are after such incidents) and I was surprised that Romney did not pursue that, especially given the specific question that was asked.

During the debate, it truly seemed to me that Romney had not actually seen the president's statements after the attack, even though that clip has frequently appeared on TV and the web. I can't fault Crowley for verifying what most of us have seen for ourselves.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-17, 12:07, said:

In my opinion the president was vulnerable to second-guessing on the Libya security arrangements (as presidents always are after such incidents) and I was surprised that Romney did not pursue that, especially given the specific question that was asked.

so was i... he missed a big chance there

Quote

During the debate, it truly seemed to me that Romney had not actually seen the president's statements after the attack, even though that clip has frequently appeared on TV and the web. I can't fault Crowley for verifying what most of us have seen for ourselves.

then maybe you can answer this... if, as you seem to believe he meant in that speech, obama knew there was a terrorist attack the next day, why did he mention 12 times (i thought it was 6, but i was wrong) during his u.n. speech that the raid was a spontaneous protest over a video? and why did he not once mention that it was a terrorist attack during the same speech? also, why would he send jay carney and susan rice out, days after the attack, with the same "caused by a video" line? if he knew it was terrorism, why did he not tell anyone else (such as carney, rice, and biden - though for biden i can somewhat understand keeping him out of the loop)?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 12:24, said:

then maybe you can answer this... if, as you seem to believe he meant in that speech, obama knew there was a terrorist attack the next day, why did he mention 12 times (i thought it was 6, but i was wrong) during his u.n. speech that the raid was a spontaneous protest over a video? and why did he not once mention that it was a terrorist attack during the same speech? also, why would he send jay carney and susan rice out, days after the attack, with the same "caused by a video" line? if he knew it was terrorism, why did he not tell anyone else (such as carney, rice, and biden - though for biden i can somewhat understand keeping him out of the loop)?

Here's one thought: The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive.

The NYT had a good article a couple days back which is worth reading. (Note, the Times actually sent reporters to Libya and conducted interviews)

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Here's the relevant quote:

Quote

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier .... The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

The long and short of it is: This is a complicated topic, there are a lot of conflicting claims, and only a simpleton expects perfect information from day one.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 12:24, said:

then maybe you can answer this... if, as you seem to believe he meant in that speech, obama knew there was a terrorist attack the next day, why did he mention 12 times (i thought it was 6, but i was wrong) during his u.n. speech that the raid was a spontaneous protest over a video?

The insufficient security is an actual issue; the specific verbiage is a non-issue: Clearing the Record About Benghazi

Quote

What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.

Even today this "act of terror" seems to have been done in response to the video. If a fuller investigation finds differently, so be it. Seems reasonable to me to reveal to the public what is thought to be the case, as has been done, rather than to wait for the complete investigation.

But I'm still puzzled by why Romney was not aware of the president's statements, given his extensive preparations for the debate.

Note: I see now that Richard has given a similar response. Sorry for the duplication.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2012-October-17, 12:53

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-17, 12:36, said:

The long and short of it is: This is a complicated topic, there are a lot of conflicting claims, and only a simpleton expects perfect information from day one.

state says they *never* thought it was because of the video (though hillary did say some confusing things on the subject)... they said they thought it was a terror attack within 24 hours... so yes, while it's prudent to gather as many facts as possible, it still makes no sense to blame the video with no mention of terrorism, if one in fact believes it was an act of terror

PassedOut, on 2012-October-17, 12:49, said:

But I'm still puzzled by why Romney was not aware of the president's statements, given his extensive preparations for the debate.

i think he took exception to obama saying the attack was an act of terror when that isn't really what he said... even crowley came out and walked back her defense

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 12:54, said:

i think he took exception to obama saying the attack was an act of terror when that isn't really what he said...

I guess you and I look at the same videos and see different things. It happens...

[luke warm]

sure it does... i hope you rethink who you're supporting, given your statements on fiscal conservatism... obama is very far from that

[dwar0123]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-17, 13:06, said:

I guess you and I look at the same videos and see different things. It happens...

Luke warm could witness a coin flip and come to a different conclusion about who won.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-17, 13:08, said:

sure it does... i hope you rethink who you're supporting, given your statements on fiscal conservatism... obama is very far from that

I'd like to see Obama reduce the deficit at a faster rate than he has, and I expect him to do so given the 12 million new jobs that will be created no matter which candidate is elected. But Romney's huge budget increases and massive tax cuts will push us back into the Bush debacle -- unacceptable.

To me, things are on the right track now -- business is good, investments are solid, the economy is starting to boom, and Obama won't jump into another stupid war. Maybe Romney won't do what he says (and if he's elected, that's what I'll have to hope) but why take a chance?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-17, 13:19, said:

To me, things are on the right track now -- business is good, investments are solid, the economy is starting to boom, and Obama won't jump into another stupid war. Maybe Romney won't do what he says (and if he's elected, that's what I'll have to hope) but why take a chance?

i honestly don't understand how 1.3% growth can be considered an economy on the verge of boomin... how do you expect obama to create 12 million jobs, given the number of people out of work, the record poverty and foodstamp levels? certainly not with green jobs (another missed opportunity last nite, since another $250M taxpayer money went down the tubes when a highly touted, by obama anyway, green company went bankrupt)?

anyway, it doesn't matter... very few people are going to actually change minds this late in the game... i take solace that nobody has been abouve 50% in a gallup poll in october and lost the election, and romney is at 51%... barring some major as yet unknown development, i'll stick w/ my prediction of a romney landslide

[kenberg]

We recorded the debate and watched it tonight. There were some disappointing features. Of course Romney's "binders filled with women" was clumsy, even I am not that clumsy. But he went on to say that during his term Massachusetts was known as having a large number of women in high profile positions. If this is true and if it was the result of his actions, surely this is more important than his clumsy formulation. They probably have different ideas about how to create a welcoming environment for all workers. This never really got developed.

There was a lot like that. A couple of pages back I figured the US role in the Mideast would arise, I mentioned Iran and Syria as specifics. What happened in Libya is important, it's always important when someone dies, but I would prefer to hear about general policies. And as far as the attack in Libya is concerned, again we got to the relatively trivial Did Obama say "terrorist attack". No Just an "act of terror". Do we really want to get bogged down in the distinction? It seems of more importance that the compound was not adequately protected. Also, it seems legit to ask why this terrorist attack, or act of terror, was attributed to a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. For the first 24 hours, this is not hard to understand.Maybe for the first 48. But I would think someone sometime asked for details of the riot and was told that no such thing had occurred. But really, I would prefer to focus on policy in Syria and Iran. What are our responsibilities there? It's a fair question.

All in all, I thought Obama was more convincing than Romney on many topics . But often they both sounded like someone wrote a cheap script for them.

[VMars]

This may be a question more for PassedOut, but I don't really understand why people aren't screaming more about Romney's proposed cap on deductions. Even if it's $17,000 (the smallest number I've heard), this wouldn't affect me personally, but it would raise taxes on some of my married friends who earn more than I do, and have more deductions.

But what I'm really confused by is wouldn't this be disastrous for businesses who file taxes as individuals (what the Republicans categorize as "small businesses")? I mean, if I had profits of $300,000, and costs of $150,000, I would be making a decent profit as a business. But I thought that I would file as if I made $300,000 and had $150,000 of deductions. Is that not true? Because if it's true, then this proposal is EXTREMELY anti-business. Of course, I could incorporate and file as a business, but this involves a big cost, and anyway I thought that the Republicans wanted to protect the individual-filer business.

[kenberg]

Perjaps part of the reason no one has said much is that

a. Except for lukewarm, no one thinks Romney will win and

b. No one believes him anyway.

But how about the deductions? I will let PO or others talk about small businesses, I will speak of myself. The kids are long since grown, the mortgage has long since been paid off, our medical expenses are not high enough to give us a deduction, our charitable contributions are not zero but neither are they very large. The effect of this is that if the tax code were re-done so that the middle class still paid the same total amount in taxes but who paid how much was unaffected by items that are now deductible, we would probably come out ahead.. At least it seems likely.

Nonetheless, I really am not that much in favor of killing off all of these deductions. In my younger years, when I was first getting a house the deduction for interest paid on my mortgage was very useful. I imagine that the same holds for young people today. I have never seen why interest on a second mortgage should be deductible, or interest on the mortgage on a second house, or interest on the mortgage on a five million dollar castle, but helping young people get into a house of their own seems totally sensible. At the other end of the life scale, I can foresee a time when medical expenses for us might be greater than they are now. Being able to take these expenses off our income for tax purposes seems sensible as well.

Some people get really cute with their tax strategies. I like sleeping soundly so I don't do that. But some deductions seem like really good ideas, and I would hope that some sort of common sense prevails.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2012-October-18, 05:57, said:

I have never seen why interest on a second mortgage should be deductible, or interest on the mortgage on a second house, or interest on the mortgage on a five million dollar castle, but helping young people get into a house of their own seems totally sensible.

Ken, you really miss the point! Indeed you seem to be under the impression that politicians are primarily interested in fairness or of doing what might be in the best interests of the majority of the population. A thought - almost all politicians have at least 2 homes...

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2012-October-17, 19:29, said:

And as far as the attack in Libya is concerned, again we got to the relatively trivial Did Obama say "terrorist attack". No Just an "act of terror". Do we really want to get bogged down in the distinction?

it's not so much the triviality of that distinction, though it could be argued that way, but more of a question as to why the administration was still blaming a video rather than calling it what it obviously was (and on 9/11 no less)... i can understand saying something like, "we aren't yet sure yada yada" but the blaming of the video *sounded* like they were sure, if you go back and listen to everyone from carney to susan rice, to hillary, to the prez himself

Quote

It seems of more importance that the compound was not adequately protected.

yeah, i sorta agree... and i just read where the state dept has refused to answer any more questions on it... really? that seems a tad less-than-transparent for the most transparent administration in history (except for exec priv on f & f, etc)

Quote

Also, it seems legit to ask why this terrorist attack, or act of terror, was attributed to a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. For the first 24 hours, this is not hard to understand.Maybe for the first 48. But I would think someone sometime asked for details of the riot and was told that no such thing had occurred. But really, I would prefer to focus on policy in Syria and Iran. What are our responsibilities there? It's a fair question.

i agree, and i believe we'll hear a lot more on those lines monday night... also questions like, "is the muslim b'hood still listed as a terrorist org? if not, when did they come off?" we'll also get questions on just who is getting weapons supplied by the usa in syria... expect a lot from both candidates reaffirming their commitments to israel... but don't be shocked if some sort of statement comes out of israel ahead of time... it's pretty well known that they are not pleased with what they see as a lackluster attempt to deny a nuke to iran

Quote

All in all, I thought Obama was more convincing than Romney on many topics . But often they both sounded like someone wrote a cheap script for them.

i watched the debate twice, just to see if crowley's actions were as bad as i first thought... outside of (for the 3rd debate) giving the dem candidate much more time, she interrupted romney far more often than obama, she allowed obama to finish more frequently, and that libya sequence was entirely unprofessional... then there were the questions themselves... "how would you compare yourself to george bush?" huh? how would obama, given the fact that the questions were supposed to be for both candidates, or even should he, answer that? to be fair, he should have been asked to compare himself to jimmy carter (or, if one were really partisan, to hugo chavez )

now there's a report of a leaked cnn email from the managing editor, asking everyone to pull together in defense of her "performance"... he states how brilliant she was and that the reviews are "overwhelmingly positive"... maybe, from chris matthews and sullivan, and cnn itself, but even politico and the wapo (decent read here) were critical of her handling of the libya question... hell, she even seemed to walk that back herself

i know these things can and will be viewed thru whatever glasses one is wearing, but you seem to be an objective, not-yet-convinced voter (maybe the only one in america - for sure the only one on this forum), so if you're so inclined you can take another look for yourself

and on another topic, you said

Quote

Nonetheless, I really am not that much in favor of killing off all of these deductions..

it was my understanding that they are only lessened/eliminated for those earning upwards of $300K, but i could be wrong

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-18, 06:24, said:

it's not so much the triviality of that distinction, though it could be argued that way, but more of a question as to why the administration was still blaming a video rather than calling it what it obviously was (and on 9/11 no less)...

How do you reconcile this statement with the quotes that Passed Out and I posted yesterday (I have conveniently reposted mine at the close of this email:

A. You don't bother to read what other people post
B. You are unable to retain information that conflicts with your world view
C. You do not accept the New York Times as a legitimate source of information
D. You're not here to exchange information / You're trolling
E. Other

Quote

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier .... The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.