The Official 10/03/12 Debate Thread:

The entire debate was a clumsy outing for O'Bama. Romney was in command from the very moment he walked on stage. He knew what he was talking about. Obama had talking points and nothing more. Romney corrected Obama and explained his position, and Obama densely returned to the lie. Obama does not undrstand Romney or Ryan's position on anything. It amazes me that anyone is going to vote for Obama in the first place, and after his poor showing in the debate it is truely astonding.

 

Because Romney is pro-immigration too. Last I heard, his position was a pandering one (probably prospecting for votes, just like Obama). Making things worse, his low tax policies would make the funding part even harder. Needing $$$ to hire ICE agents, Border Patrol, build the fence, create immigration courts & jails, etc.

 

500 people (in a nation of over 305 million) polled. Oh boy !

Well, even if we were to ascribe some meaning to this poll, it shows that 54% did not consider Romney the winner. And for this, Republicans are rejoicing ? Madness and desperation go hand in hand.

 

Like other pro-Romney posts in this thread, you talk rhetorically without offering anything specific. I see no evidence here that Romney did any better than Obama.

 

Like other pro-Romney posts in this thread, you talk rhetorically without offering anything specific. I see no evidence here that Romney did any better than Obama.

 

They should actually have Dick Cheney debating with Obama. I always like to see the republican who would be officiating as effective president if the GOP wins POTUS.

It's important to know what the de facto republican nominee would do with our country if elected. Forget an empty chair. Obama should be standing next to an empty suit...If democrats know a good cartoonist, they'd commission him/her to do an Obama next to an emtpy suit debating with Cheney peeking out behind the curtains.

 

This is what happens when you surround yourself with a bunch of sycophants and are never challenged. I love Dennis Miller's line...The President better hope a kicked ass is covered under Obamacare.

 

Romney kicked Obama's ass in the debates. That means Romney won the debate. Whether he said what you wanted him to say is immaterial to whether or not he won.

 

Increased economic activity following TAX CUTS resulted in the LARGEST EVER TAX REVENUES...during, yep, the BUSH YEARS.

Lowering taxes increases tax revenue...due to the VOLUME of increased economic activity....

 

Along with denial of reality....Obama lost BIG. Try to get your mind around it....

 

The Bush tax cuts led to a three-year decline in tax revenue, from $2 trillion in 2000 to $1.8 trillion in 2003. But go on believing whatever fantasy makes you happy man.

 

Bush tax cuts did that? Please, tell us what taxes were cut then - and we'll see.

Nevermind: I'm out of patience. Bush's tax cuts were initially passed in 2001 to spur the economy, and - because they didn't take effect quickly enough (read: there weren't any cuts with which to create stimulus), Bush's Job Growth and Tax Act (2003) was passed.

That is why the numbers started looking better immediately then next year.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

It's true that the 2003 act was passed to speed things up. But it's disingenuous to link the increased tax revenue to the 2003 act since most of the extra money flying around at that time was due to the housing bubble, not tax breaks. That's why tax revenue took a dive in 2009, a year after the bubble burst, even though your beloved tax cuts were still in effect.

Never mind, now I'm out of patience with you. The point is that the notion that tax cuts will increase revenue and tax increases will decrease them is a myth. Give it up.

 

EGTRRA was what I was referencing when I said Bush's cuts weren't implemented in any real way quickly enough; it was a 'tax lite' bill, and Bush quickly realized he needed more aggressive implementation of it, so he got passed in 2003: JGTRRA.

In short, EGTRRA had no measurable effect, because it was weak.

Hold on now. Extra money flying around? Was this money not flying around in 2002? In 2001?

Yes, yes they were:



And you'll notice that despite the increase in housing values PRIOR TO EGTRRA and JGTRRA, the economy was slumping. The operative point - which you'll never admit - is that tax cuts stimulated the economy and grew revenues simultaneously. That isn't supposed to be possible in liberal land, but there it is:



Fact is, Attsamatta: you tried lying with statistics. There were no impactful tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 - but there was the end of the dotcom bubble, and there was 9/11 - and they hurt the economy.

So what caused you to keep your claim only to a 3 year period, instead of talking about Bush's effects from 2003 and on?

Because you know your lie falls apart if you tell the truth.


And why wouldn't a housing bubble cause revenues to crash? It is what catalyzed our latest economic catastrophe - thanks to worms like Barney Frank, who blocked Bush's efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie. Own it, lefty.

Whups - it appears that the charts and facts hate you.

 

No, that money was not flying around in 2001-02. The median prices were up in '01 and '02, especially in select housing markets; but not on the scale that was happening in 2003-2007. There were 300,000 more sales in both 2004 and 2005 than in 2001; from your chart that's $300+ billion more money from home sales alone in each of those years. Also, the profits from mortgage backed securities weren't near what they were in those mid-aughts. The CDO market, for example, grew from an estimated $20 billion in the first quarter of 2004 to its peak of over $180 billion in the first quarter of 2007. Your pictoral graphs leave all that information out - you want to attribute all that growth to tax cuts.

Correct, I will not admit that point until facts and data actually demonstrate it to be true.

Likewise, I find partial facts and incomplete data disagreeable.

 

This is why the the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is so (*)(*)(*)(*) popular.

 

I'd also like to point out that even though revenues hit a new high during those years, revenues as a share to the economy were at the lowest levels since 1950. Not to mention that the tax cuts didn't really help the economy at all. Bush had a horrible job creation record. Abysmal. It was actually even worse than his father's term. Our GDP also leveled out during the Bush years. You can't just look at the federal revenues and simply claim "Aha! They are going up, therefore the tax cuts must be working!" There are other factors at play here. How about we mention the huge increase of public sector jobs (yes, buddy, those are your tax dollars at work) under Bush? If Obama had continued that level of increasing the government at the rate Bush was, our employment would be down to 7%.