Bring On The Debates

[dualstow]

I missed the debates last night because I was out celebrating something.
Where's the best place to watch them? Hulu, maybe, or youtube?
I'm going to look for a transcript at PBS.

[Lone Wolf]

Wow.  Total domination by Romney last night.

Romney's presentation was very organized and effective.  Obama was surprisingly awful.  At first, I thought that Obama was just unprepared but I wonder if it's largely a factor of the raw material he's forced to work with.  Obama's economic record and policies are atrocious, which gives Romney a huge attack surface to blast away at.  Obama has simply never faced this kind of direct attack on his record.

And on some level it seemed like Obama himself realizes how bad the economic situation is and just sort of shrank away from the whole discussion.  A politician that possessed an even greater-than-average comfort with political lying (Nixon or Clinton come to mind) might have been able to resist this impulse.  But Obama seemed to wilt under the unpleasantness of discussing the economic facts on the ground.  Unfortunately for him, Romney wasn't letting up for a second.

For dualstow and anyone that hasn't watched, the debates are posted in their entirety on CBS news.

[Pointedstick]

And on some level it seemed like Obama himself realizes how bad the economic situation is and just sort of shrank away from the whole discussion.  A politician that possessed an even greater-than-average comfort with political lying (Nixon or Clinton come to mind) might have been able to resist this impulse.  But Obama seemed to wilt under the unpleasantness of discussing the economic facts on the ground.  Unfortunately for him, Romney wasn't letting up for a second.

I came away with the same impression. Obama is a man who fancies himself honest and above the political fray, but that self-image certainly doesn't do you any good when you're having to defend the indefensible. My wife remarked several times that he was speaking as though he hadn't been president for the past four years. He kept saying, "we need to do this" and "we're gonna do that", almost as if he was a spectator rather than a leader.

[moda0306]

LW,

If Obama's policies are "atrocious," I guess I'm curious what you would have done in February of 2009 (assuming no political resistance, but a reasonable amount of time for your policies to be implimented, (ie, you can't have wallstreet & federal reserve reform on day 1 of your inauguration).

I tend to get the feeling that people in your general camp would suggest the following framework:

1) Slash income taxes, and eliminate tax credits and unworthy deductions.  Eliminate the estate tax.  Eliminate or vastly lower gas taxes
2) Eliminate the most burdensome 50% of federal regulations
3) Allow banks to foreclose on homes that are behind on their payments to clear the market of un-worthy homeowners.
4) Slash spending on entitlements, military (depending on how much of a hawk someone may be), and other government services, though I’d be curious where you’d focus most of your efforts.
5) Drill for oil & gas across a lot more federal lands.
6) No bail outs… banks, car companies, and green companies are forced to fend for themselves based on what the market will bear.
7) No lowered interest rates by the fed (though given the demand for loanable funds, I don’t see current rates as all-that artificial.  It’s supply-demand).

Do you really think, with people receiving entitlements (that, for the most part, they either desperately need (Medicaid) or paid for throughout their working years (SS& Medicare)), faced with significantly smaller disposable income, would keep demand high enough in aggregate to have businesses, who are now faced with lower taxes & regulations, to invest when their current factories aren’t operating at or near capacity?  Are we sure these businesses won't just sit on the cash?

I think the last piece is the clincher.  Businesses hire & expand when they’re swamped with demand.  They aren’t now, because of disposable incomes & balance sheets.

[Pointedstick]

If I had been president, one of my biggest priorities would have been to help people repair their balance sheets. This would entail humongous tax cuts, of course, like the small ones Obama pushed through only much bigger. I would have also attempted to pass a temporary federal matching program for debt repayment. Something like, you put in one dollar, we'll put in three dollars. I'd make it taper off such that in two years, it becomes a two-to-one match, and in four years it's a one-to-one match, etc. That would give indebted people a stroing temporary incentive to really get cracking on their debt, but it's a boost and not a bailout, preserving their "skin in the game", so to speak.

I probably would have also refrained from bailing out the banks, but extended FDIC insurance to all assets held in custody of the failing financial institutions. No reason to bail out the dinosaurs when what we're really concerned with is that people don't lose their life savings.

With our current monetary system being so decidedly un-libertarian, you would really need to fix that before attempting many libertarian monetary reforms. Maybe I would allow people to start paying federal taxes in bitcoins. 

[moda0306]

PS,

I tend to disagree with your review on the state of our monetary system.  We can more easily access diverse, liquid, convenient forms of wealth storage than any time in history.  We can own gold, and probably pretty easily get away with trading it w/o paying taxes.  Simply because we have to engage in commerce in the US dollar doesn't mean we don't have options as free people to get out from under debasement, should that be an issue.  In fact for two decades (1980-2000) we were getting paid handily for taking what you seem to agree (MMR and all that) is almost zero risk (positive real-returning T-Bills.  Beating inflation w/ taking zero risk was never really possible back in the guilded age.  Nor could Americans realistically hold onto foreign bonds & currencies (and have them be liquid) to hedge themselves against debasement of the USD.

[Pointedstick]

I could be wrong, moda, but I tend to think our criticisms are pretty similar. I don't disagree with what you said just there, but I think the biggest problems with our monetary system is fragility stemming from a perverse public/private partnership. Any kind of collaboration between the government and the private sector can easily become collusive or abusive, and we have what appears to be the worst of all worlds: politically favored businesses (banks) are granted a government monopoly (on issuing legal tender good for payment of taxes), but insulated from the consequences of their systemically dangerous decisions (making and re-selling millions of bad mortgage loans).

So the banks have vast government-granted power, but whenever they get into trouble, they all shout, "oh no, you can't let us deal with the consequences of our bad decisions, that would take down the entire financial system!" And then the government schizophrenically rescues some, and lets others fail, and merges others and generally makes a mess of what should be a pretty orderly process of the culprits being allowed to burn down, while their customers are protected from the flames. IMHO.

[moda0306]

PS,

Don't you think your debt-repayment program would have huge economic side-effects.  I can't think of anyone that could turn that down on ANY debt.

I had a somewhat similar idea, allowing people to take 401k distributions tax/penalty-free if they pay some of their mortgage-debt and the bank takes a similar-sized hit, and refinance.

[MediumTex]

Romney looked relaxed, confident and assertive, while Obama seemed annoyed at having to share a stage with someone he feels is beneath him (Obama is President, Romney is just a candidate--that sort of thing).

The problem, of course, is that much of what Romney seemed to score points on is either wrong or doesn't make any sense.

How do you cut spending and cut taxes?  When has that ever actually happened before?

Obama's bit about companies getting tax deductions for moving operations overseas was really a simple point--expenses associated with relocating a facility anywhere would be tax deductible as an ordinary business expense.  I think what Obama was trying to say was that perhaps we should stop allowing companies to deduct the full cost of relocating when they are relocating facilities from inside the U.S. to a foreign location. 

Obama didn't make enough of the fact that he supported extending the Bush tax cuts and also supported two one-year payroll tax cuts.

In general, I'm not sure that Obama understands how traumatic an event like 2008 is to an economy.  From my perspective, the economy is actually doing pretty good, considering that it has been in a slow but steady recovery since the 2008 slump, unemployment has been steadily (if not slowly) improving, and when you look at where the U.S. economy is today compared to where it was at in 1933 (four years after the 1929 crisis) it's much better off.  Also, when you cmpare the U.S. response to the 2008 crisis to the U.K. response, I think it makes Obama's policies look pretty good.  Ironically, Romney is suggesting that the U.S. follow the austerity path that the U.K. has been following without telling us why something that worked so poorly for the U.K. is somehow going to work better for the U.S.

Romney had a good night.  He looked like he felt good.  That's what will stick with people more than the policy details.  Obama looked uncomfortable and vulnerable.

[Alanw]

Last nights debate reminded me of the 1974 boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman where Ali did the Rope a Dope maneuver laying on the ropes and letting Foreman pound on him for 7 rounds with little defense.  Then after Foreman (Romney) wore himself out, Ali (Obama) took to the offensive knocking Foreman out.

Look for Obama to take a little more of a pounding from Romney in the next debates before taking to the offensive.  Obama is a much more skilled debater than he showed last night.  Something didn't seem right.  Maybe the Rope a Dope?

[MediumTex]

Look for Obama to take a little more of a pounding from Romney in the next debates before taking to the offensive.  Obama is a much more skilled debater than he showed last night.  Something didn't seem right.  Maybe the Rope a Dope?

I think Obama was waiting for Romney to say something stupid, and he just never did.

Obama was too conservative in his approach, but it sort of makes sense, considering how gaffe-prone Romney is.

Romney was just really on last night.  I'll bet his staff did something like sitting him down and making him watch several seasons of Roseanne as part of his prep.  He seemed to understand regular people last night more than he usually does.

[Lone Wolf]

Last nights debate reminded me of the 1974 boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman where Ali did the Rope a Dope maneuver laying on the ropes and letting Foreman pound on him for 7 rounds with little defense.  Then after Foreman (Romney) wore himself out, Ali (Obama) took to the offensive knocking Foreman out.

Look for Obama to take a little more of a pounding from Romney in the next debates before taking to the offensive.  Obama is a much more skilled debater than he showed last night.  Something didn't seem right.  Maybe the Rope a Dope?

But the next Presidential debate isn't for two weeks.  If Obama's strategy is to marinate in his own failure for two weeks, well... I'd recommend a different approach.

It's all just entertainment.  That's the key thing to understand.

Entertaining it was for sure.  Neither man has the lustrous hair of Rick Perry or the slapstick talent of Joe Biden, but they put on a great show. 

[clacy]

Last nights debate reminded me of the 1974 boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman where Ali did the Rope a Dope maneuver laying on the ropes and letting Foreman pound on him for 7 rounds with little defense.  Then after Foreman (Romney) wore himself out, Ali (Obama) took to the offensive knocking Foreman out.

Look for Obama to take a little more of a pounding from Romney in the next debates before taking to the offensive.  Obama is a much more skilled debater than he showed last night.  Something didn't seem right.  Maybe the Rope a Dope?

Skilled at delivering a scripted speech with the help of a teleprompter.... yes

Skilled at debating someone who can fire back..... no

Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that Obama has been treated with kid gloves his entire career. 

Hillary underestimated him completely in 08. McCain was too aggressiveness to provide a challenge.

The press rarely critiques him in an aggressive manner because they largely agree with his policy.

Last night, he took some shots, and didn't seem to handle it well.

[Benko]

  He seemed to understand regular people last night more than he usually does.

The child of one of Romney's colleagues while he was at Bain capital disappeared, and Romney closed down Bain and they all went to (?NY) to find the child.  One does't get to be CEO of anything (presumably you have to start lower down the ladder) by not having a feel for people

The bias on this board is hard to believe.

[MediumTex]

  He seemed to understand regular people last night more than he usually does.

The child of one of Romney's colleagues while he was at Bain capital disappeared, and Romney closed down Bain and they all went to (?NY) to find the child.  One does't get to be CEO of anything (presumably you have to start lower down the ladder) by not having a feel for people

The bias on this board is hard to believe.

I'm talking about comments like "I like to fire people" when unemployment is as high as it currently is.

I don't think it's biased to say that comments like that from someone worth over $100 million do not make him seem like a regular guy.

Do you think I am biased in favor of Obama?

[notsheigetz]

I heard it said that in the first presidential debate, the challenger usually wins.

Case in point - Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984. Same story. Reagan was tired and old and Mondale was energized more than anyone had seen him before.

But in the second debate they said let Reagan be Reagan and the old Gipper rose to the challenge.

I suspect the same again. Obama will ultimately stand up strong for those who want free birth control for women cradle to grave, kids on the insurance plan until age 26, food stamps for all, Amnesty by executive decree for illegal aliens.

And he will eventually win the day.

(I don't really believe that but if it comes to pass there really is a new "morning" in America and we all need to evaluate our PP investments - probably making NO changes at all in the short term but keeping long term objectives in mind).

[Benko]

1. "I like to fire people"  was poorly worded and it should have been worded something like "I like to be able to fire people when they don't perform competently" or whatever wording like that you please.  Would that have been out of touch?

2. "Understanding regular people" and being "a regular guy" are not the same thing. Is there one senator/former senator who is a regular guy?  Is Barack Obama a regular guy? From all descriptions, Obama doesn't like people, any people (well perhaps his family).

Obama is an egomaniac and an elitist. Who do you think is treated better, people who have worked for Romney over the years, or people who have worked for/under Obama?

3. MT for a board dedicated to investing, the large number of people in the tank here for Obama is mind boggling.
Even if Romney were to govern as the RINO that many suspect he will, to really say that there is no significant difference between how Romney would govern and what Obama has done is to ignore much that has gone on the last 4 years.

Do I think you are biased?  I am not sure since for the most part, I am bad at remembering who made which post on this board.

[MediumTex]

3. MT for a board dedicated to investing, the large number of people in the tank here for Obama is mind boggling.
Even if Romney were to govern as the RINO that many suspect he will, to really say that there is no significant difference between how Romney would govern and what Obama has done is to ignore much that has gone on the last 4 years.

I honestly think that there are more people here in the tank for Calvin Coolidge than for Obama.

In my case, I know that my praise of Calvin Coolidge is probably a bit naive, because he was in many ways a flawed President.

There are two or three posters here who are Obama fans, a lot of people who really dislike Obama, and a lot more who don't care much for either one of them.  I have not detected a pro-Obama bias among posters here.

[craigr]

I think it's important to make the distinction between people that are willing to post in support of a candidate publicly, and the actual support of that candidate by people here.

For instance I just try to avoid these debates entirely. However that certainly doesn't mean I support any particular candidate.

[dragoncar]

It seems that the pro-Obama posts some of the time are personal attacks, either on Romney or on the pro-Romney poster. I've noticed this on other sites as well. The Romney supporters tend to stick to facts and issues and events in the news while the Obama fanciers sometimes get ugly and personal. Just like when the topic of conversation on here was whether or not I was a racist for opposing Obama.

You mean like "Obama is an egomaniac and an elitist" above?

[moda0306]

Reub,

I don't know how you see that distinction between Obama and Romney supporters.  Though I see what you're saying if you're staying that the hateful birther wing of the right doesn't fall under "Romney supporters."

And I really have no idea what the hell Benko's talking about regarding board members here. I feel a lot more comfortable here than the Faux News comments section that seems to be in a constant battle with moderators trying to creatively mask the "N" word in their posts.  I find this place refreshing for debates and have no problem with most of the people on either side of the spectrum that actually attempt to maintain a dialogue rather than spew meaningless, degrading hyperbole towards either candidate, or especially other posters on this board.  

If this board doesn't feel like a good place for debate, I don't know where you'd find it.  Though I wonder if good debate is as much the goal as a nationalistic echochamber.  To me any kind of echochamber is awful to experience. It's like watching Flowers for Algernon take place in real time by several people on the Internet simultaneously. A flame-fest isn't much better, and while debates get heated, they usually move the ball forward or at least give us a look at other ways of looking at things.  

[Pointedstick]

I feel like there's a pretty good mix. We've got conservatives, liberals, libertarians, independents, and folks who just dislike politics in general. I haven't detected that any one position really has the intellectual or numerical upper hand around here.

[moda0306]

Reub,

Can you forward us to the posts that were discussing whether you were racist or not? 

Further, I don't know whether it qualifies as racist, but you did call for the US government to employ dictators of our choice to effectively enslave the entire muslim world for the sake of US interests.

I don't like labels unless they help us understand things better... not simply categorize people as types.  I'm sure your life experiences that make you feel the way you do can't be fit into a word, but I feel there's a lot of anger in you that manifests itself in somewhat snarky, negative ways, and I guess some would put that in a box labelled "racist."  I think it's a bull$hit term right up with "socialist"... or at least to the degree they're used today.

[MediumTex]

Let's move on from the racist stuff.  As I recall, someone said they didn't think Reub was a racist (and I don't either), and that was it.

We're not going to do anything good with that topic, so let's just move on.

I have never detected any hint of racism from anyone here.

[smurff]

Sigh.