Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[maidu]

Reagan lowered a lot more taxes than he raised. He was overwhelmingly reelected and the economy was on fire during his second term. May Romney do the same.

As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

source

[Ulysses G.]

He still lowered a lot more taxes than he raised and the economy thrived under his watch. He raised taxes when he felt that it was the best thing under the circumstances, which is only sensible.

[Jingthing]

These are different times. This is the era of the Norquist pledge, that obstructionist irrational toxicity. The truth is taxes NEED to be raised now AND spending needs to be cut. BOTH.

Both sides are actually for big government. Most American people are actually for big government, don't let them fool you. When they whine, they are whining about spending going places they don't like, that's all. The conflict is about exactly what and who is taxed, and WHERE the spending is.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

These are different times. This is the era of the Norquist pledge, that obstructionist irrational toxicity. The truth is taxes NEED to be raised now AND spending needs to be cut. BOTH.

Both sides are actually for big government. Most American people are actually for big government, don't let them fool you. The conflict is about exactly what and who is taxed, and WHERE the spending is.

AND...just as importantly: true financial reform. The truth is all of these hurt some major constituency, so this election is truly between Frick and Frack.

FORTUNE -- The economy has taken center stage in the drama of the 2012 Presidential race. Yet, neither candidate's campaign script acknowledges the connection between our current economic woes and the financial crisis which caused them. Four years after the crisis, financial reform remains a work in progress. So just what are you going to do about that, gentlemen? The reality is, without a stable financial system, neither of you will achieve the sustainable economic growth you promise. Here are five questions I would like you to answer.

1. WILL YOU BREAK UP TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS?

2. WILL YOU CAP THE ABILITY OF LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO TAKE RISKS WITH BORROWED MONEY?

3. WILL YOU REQUIRE WALL STREET FIRMS AND OTHERS WHO "SECURITIZE" LOANS TO RETAIN PART OF THE RISK IF THOSE LOANS DEFAULT?

4. WILL YOU END SPECULATION IN THE CREDIT DERIVATIVES MARKETS?

5. WILL YOU END THE REVOLVING DOOR? The spectacle of senior regulators moving into and out of industry has undermined public confidence in our regulatory system

http://finance.fortu...ag/sheila-bair/

[maidu]

After the 2008 meltdown on Wall Street, the talking heads were spinning around trying to find which people were most to blame. There were big shot execs, there were gov't heavies, but one day there was a new culprit: The American People. That's right, most Americans are not good at saving money, and spend waaaaay outside their means. The US federal government is largly a reflection of the mind-set of the people they're supposed to serve. Obama is bad, yet Romney is worse (in my view) when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the testicular fortitude it would take to really cut back on unnecessary spending. ....and the types of things they promote for new or added spending.

On a Thai perspective: Thaksin is like that also. He's a very rich man who thinks that any problem can be fixed by borrowing money for the job. All the fixes which Thaksin recommends for Thailand require very large expenditures. He doesn't seem to be concerned about where the funding will come from. Example: pumping flood water from Bangkok to Issan farmlands. Or buying rice for more than market value, in order to store (and hope it doesn't rot before it gets sold to somewhere else, likely for less than its cost).

[keemapoot]

Romney does not want to decrease miltary spending and with what has been going on in Iran, Korea and between China and Japan, he may have good reason.

Actually, Romney's goals are probably sound, but there's no way to pay for it from his proposed plan and rhetoric, and his math doesn't add up:

Mr. Obama’s cuts in personnel rest on the dubious assumption that there will be no need to fight land wars in the coming decade; while no one wishes for such wars, trends in the Middle East make that a risky bet. The shrinking Navy, in turn, is at odds with Mr. Obama’s strategy of building up forces in Asia as a hedge against a belligerent China. In all, Mr. Romney’s plan would better respond to U.S. strategic needs, if a responsible way could be found to pay for it.

As both candidates have acknowledged, large savings could be made in the Pentagon’s civilian administration and contracting — not to speak of soaring salary and benefit costs, which take 30 percent of the defense budget. But Mr. Romney would have to find hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the 2010 Pentagon wish list, and much more for the 4 percent goal. Given his unwillingness to contemplate tax increases or other revenue measures, military spending is one more area where Mr. Romney’s math doesn’t add up.

http://www.washingto...6a4b_story.html

*emphasis added

[Ulysses G.]

No matter how anyone wants to interpret Obama's "No acts of terror..." sound bite, the undeniable fact is that for a long time after that moment, he and his administration refused to call it a terror attack. They came out all over the place (White House press briefings, interviews, political talk shows, etc) saying it came from a spontaneous protest to that crappy video about Mohammed. If he meant to call it a terror attack the day after, why didn't anyone ever call it that again during the weeks that followed? Why did they keep coming out saying it wasn't a planned attack, that it was the result of a spontaneous protest where instead of signs people brought rocket launchers?

All one has to do is look at the timeline of what took place.

[Ulysses G.]

The Orlando Sentinel usually endorces democrats, but not this year.

We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race.

We reject the innuendo that some critics have heaped on the president. We don't think he's a business-hating socialist. We don't think he's intent on weakening the American military. We don't think he's unpatriotic. And, no, we don't think he was born outside the United States.

But after reflecting on his four years in the White House, we also don't think that he's the best qualified candidate in this race.

We endorse Mitt Romney for president.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-endorsement-president-mitt-romney-101912-20121018,0,6927962.story

[keemapoot]

Shockingly, Romney killed with some great jokes at the Al Smith dinner. I'd bet my life that Dennis Miller and his writing team wrote most of these, and probably spent hours and hours coaching Romney on how not to deliver the jokes like a robot:

http://washingtonexa...95#.UIC3U2-cfoY this one quality is better

or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHbe-aO6oI

Edited October 19, 2012 by keemapoot

[koheesti]

No matter how anyone wants to interpret Obama's "No acts of terror..." sound bite, the undeniable fact is that for a long time after that moment, he and his administration refused to call it a terror attack. They came out all over the place (White House press briefings, interviews, political talk shows, etc) saying it came from a spontaneous protest to that crappy video about Mohammed. If he meant to call it a terror attack the day after, why didn't anyone ever call it that again during the weeks that followed? Why did they keep coming out saying it wasn't a planned attack, that it was the result of a spontaneous protest where instead of signs people brought rocket launchers?

All one has to do is look at the timeline of what took place.

Thanks for finding that video. There is no denying all this. This issue is not a matter of opinion or open for interpretation. It is very clear cut. I wonder what is going through the minds of Americans who still insist on denying it? Is it something they just do in public because they want their guy to win at all costs? Talk about playing politics with the tragedy.

[Chicog]

Reagan lowered a lot more taxes than he raised. He was overwhelmingly reelected and the economy was on fire during his second term. May Romney do the same.

Yes, triple the debt, get the economy blowing up like Baumgartner's balloon and we can all go through this crap again in 2019, like we did in 1987.

Boom and Bust comes with a price, and the only people who seem to end up paying are the ones from the middle class downwards.

Even if he does get elected, I hope to f*** he doesn't repeat that administration's actions.

Or are you now saying it's acceptable to increase the national debt to grow the economy?

[Jingthing]

Yes, Reagan sowed the seeds of the bubble bursts later. He is massively overrated by republicans.

[CWMcMurray]

All in all this last debate seemed a tie to me...

Both candidates got their points across equally well, so it just comes down to who your believe (as both candidates disagreed on the "facts")

Romney supporter will think he came out slightly ahead and Obama supporters will think he came out slightly ahead

For me...

I like Romney's position on taxes and plan to turn around the economy more ( this coming from a guy who will not pay taxes in either case due foreign income exclusion)

But think that Obama is correct to reduce the Military budget. As military is pulling out of both Iraq and Adganistan, the military should have its budget cut as the cost of a military deployed to 2 battle fronts must cost more than a piece time military not deployed in 2 war zones... Simple

[Chicog]

No matter how anyone wants to interpret Obama's "No acts of terror..." sound bite, the undeniable fact is that for a long time after that moment, he and his administration refused to call it a terror attack. They came out all over the place (White House press briefings, interviews, political talk shows, etc) saying it came from a spontaneous protest to that crappy video about Mohammed. If he meant to call it a terror attack the day after, why didn't anyone ever call it that again during the weeks that followed? Why did they keep coming out saying it wasn't a planned attack, that it was the result of a spontaneous protest where instead of signs people brought rocket launchers?

All one has to do is look at the timeline of what took place.

<snip>

What an amateurish piece of editing. There are two *unedited* videos showing Obama referring to it as an act of terror on September 12th and September 13th. That is where Romney was incorrect.

Whilst you are correct that other members of his staff sent out the wrong message, it does not detract from that fact that Romney got it wrong in the debate with Obama. That video even edits out the first part of the moderator's comments in that interview.

Shallow and I have to say, still reeks of straw clutching.

Any chance of moving this thread back to the issues? Or do I start banging on and on about Romney cutting female jobs while he was Governor, when he lied and told everyone he grew them? Or how his maths simply does not add up, and he's lying about closing loopholes because he has no intention of doing so?

Because I would consider that fruitless.

On the other hand I'd be very interested to hear both sides' opinions on Post 244 and that list. Seems straight up sensible to me. Banks who speculate and the people that let them do it should do it with their own money, not other peoples. Which president is more likely to take steps to regulate irresponsible (or in some cases downright criminal) behaviour by the financial industry?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Chicog

[koheesti]

Well, I was asked for my reasons for supporting Romney and - unlike Obama or Romney in that last debate - I gave a straight forward and honest answer. Now, I'd be interested in one of the staunch Obama supporters to give their list for supporting him. Any takers?

[Credo]

I wouldn't call myself a 'staunch' Obama supporter, but I can tell you why I support him, or, more accurately, why I don't support Romney and the Republican party.

Obama is an inclusive person and the vision that he has of the US includes everyone. Romney and the Republicans are exclusive and view the US as being rightfully belonging to the richest and most blessed citizens of the country. The poor, the weak, the disenfranchised and the marginalized, are not included in the grand scheme of things.

The Republicans have little or no compassion or caring for anyone exempt them and their way of life. Money will be spent by the Republicans, but it will be only for the benefit of them and the richer portions of American society.

Romney isn't a bad person and if he becomes President, I will not shed any tears. I actually think he has more compassion than many in his party. He's a flip-flopper on a lot of issues and that's fine with me, provided that changing one's opinion is done because of what you have learned, not what you think others want to hear.

Of the two, I think Obama is better and more compassionate.

[Ulysses G.]

Shockingly, Romney killed with some great jokes at the Al Smith dinner. I'd bet my life that Dennis Miller and his writing team wrote most of these, and probably spent hours and hours coaching Romney on how not to deliver the jokes like a robot:

http://washingtonexa...95#.UIC3U2-cfoY this one quality is better

or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHbe-aO6oI

Thanks for that. Whoever wrote the jokes, they were funny indeed and very effective.

[Jingthing]

Why do I support Obama?

Because I agree with his policy positions on pretty much ALL the issues.

Why do I oppose Romney?

Because I disagree with his policy positions on pretty much ALL the issues.

Couldn't be simpler.

Do I think Obama has performed perfectly (no) and that some other politicians could have done better supporting his positions that I do support than him (yes)? But you do have to factor in the extreme republican obstructionism which limited what he or any democrat could have accomplished.

I will be very upset if Romney wins based on his probable right wing supreme court picks alone and his intention to trash Obamacare. Romney may not be heartless to his friends and family, but his POSITION on dealing with people with preexisting conditions IS heartless. He crows about a tragedy in Libya which was enemies killing four Americans at the same time advocating health care policies killing hundreds of thousands of Americans by policies of Americans.

No, I won't be ecstatic when Obama wins. More like relieved. Obama will still have to deal with the obstructionist republicans mostly who have signed the extremist Norquist pledge.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

The Republicans have little or no compassion or caring for anyone exempt them and their way of life. Money will be spent by the Republicans, but it will be only for the benefit of them and the richer portions of American society.

If you equate Republicans with conservatives, then there is no contest, conservatives consistently donate more time and money to helping the needy. Liberals by definition believe it is the government's job to help everyone. Basically, to spend someone else's money to help, not their own. That isn't very compassionate or caring.

Why do I support Obama?

Because I agree with his policy positions on pretty much ALL the issues.

Why do I oppose Romney?

Because I disagree with his policy positions on pretty much ALL the issues.

Couldn't be simpler.

Care to elaborate? A blanket "I agree with him and disagree with the other guy" is sort of a cop out.

Besides, everyone knows that politicians make promises they can't keep, so that's why specific positions on issues didn't make my list. Usually they can't keep them because they aren't things they can accomplish by themselves, in our form of government the President needs to work with Congress to get something done.

[Credo]

The reason I don't post much in this topic is because of this. I don't wish to argue with you and or the 'facts' presented.

You asked a question. I answered. I don't wish to argue with you.

[koheesti]

The reason I don't post much in this topic is because of this. I don't wish to argue with you and or the 'facts' presented.

You asked a question. I answered. I don't wish to argue with you.

Sorry, I didn't realize my reply to you was so harsh or aggressive. Again, my apologies.

[Credo]

The reason I don't post much in this topic is because of this. I don't wish to argue with you and or the 'facts' presented.

You asked a question. I answered. I don't wish to argue with you.

Sorry, I didn't realize my reply to you was so harsh or aggressive. Again, my apologies.

No, my apologies. Your response was not too harsh or too aggressive. I just really find that arguing politics to end up nowhere. A little like arguing religion. If I change my mind, it will be because of some fundamental change, not from a discussion on a web board. That said, I do find some posts enlightening.

[Jingthing]

...

Care to elaborate?

...

OK:

http://www.barackoba...rce=primary-nav

Of course I am to the left of Obama on some issues. For example, I strongly feel the U.S. needs a REAL single payer health care system. The Obama version of Romneycare is an improvement, but not nearly good enough, especially on the issue of controlling costs. Now I do know Obama also favored single payer in his first election and I truly believe in his heart he is still for that but he did what he could and even that clearly wasn't easy. So to be fair I have to give him credit for that.

No I am not going to detail every issue. Romney/Ryan don't "have time" to detail their tax/budget plan. That's the team that deserves to be confronted about copping out. Is there a SPECIFIC issue you would like to discuss?

One thing you can be sure Romney will be able to accomplish IF he gets the chance, is pick right wing supreme court justices. The kind that vote for obscenities like Citizens United and against civil rights for minorities, for banning abortion, and for more corporate power and against worker's rights.

Even if I bought the meme that Romney would necessarily be more competent an executive, that would be even more scary! He favors things that are odious to me and last thing I would want is a super effective leader for bad policies.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[GiHadOrange]

The Republicans have little or no compassion or caring for anyone exempt them and their way of life. Money will be spent by the Republicans, but it will be only for the benefit of them and the richer portions of American society.

If you equate Republicans with conservatives, then there is no contest, conservatives consistently donate more time and money to helping the needy. Liberals by definition believe it is the government's job to help everyone. Basically, to spend someone else's money to help, not their own. That isn't very compassionate or caring.

Can we stick to the line to call these kind of liberals socialist, socialist by definition and not liberals by definition?

[Jingthing]

In the U.S. and most all countries, at least some aspects of society are run in a socialist manner and if that wasn't true you would be looking at an anarchic totally failed state. Hardly an ideal!

For example, in the U.S. most of the roads system, the military, and medical care for those over 65 are under government control and management.

In my view, modern American liberals are indeed for some expansion of these kinds of models in some limited areas, such as medical care access a right for ALL instead of only the aged.

No, I do not think that most American liberals are really socialists or anti-capitalist/private ownership for everything or even anywhere close to most things! So I reject that kind of red baiting label.

It might be true that right wingers give more charity money but I can assure no charity program is ever possibly going to provide medical care for ALL its citizens like a government medical system as in Canada and many advanced countries. Human nature just doesn't work that way.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[GiHadOrange]

I thought lines like "those liberals" in a slurring manner is used when there is a perception that these so called liberals don't do anything when there should be done actually something, at least in the perception by those who call someone liberal.

e.g. as in: Those liberals don't do enough against illegal immigration.

I know in America is everything little bit different, as we had the discussion before what is a socialist in America and what is a socialist in the rest of the world. Similar difference exist when it comes to liberals in America and what defines a liberal in the rest of the world.

Calling those American "liberals" socialists fits better IMHO.

Liberals can also stay for a small government concept, socialist never.

[Jingthing]

In the U.S. context, socialist is much more of a slur than liberal which of course is also used as a slur but not seen as severe. The baseline of American politics is to the right of European politics. Objectively Obama is a slightly left of center moderate and on some issues actually right wing, but he has a hard time being labeled correctly in the American context. So general American political labels really don't translate so well. That's just the way it is. That said, here we are talking U.S. politics. So if I am saying Romney would appoint right wing supreme court justices, it should easily be understood what is meant in the context of American political issues.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[samran]

He still lowered a lot more taxes than he raised and the economy thrived under his watch. He raised taxes when he felt that it was the best thing under the circumstances, which is only sensible.

...and entrenched fiscal imbalance by putting the budget into structural deficit.

And the only way the US could get away with is was that it held the worlds reserve currency. That approach was replicated by Bush mark II. And we are now where we are.

[GiHadOrange]

left v.s right thinking is useless and often misleading IMHO. much better is it to compare small vs. big government ideologies and to ask who stand for what.

[Jingthing]

left v.s right thinking is useless and often misleading IMHO. much better is it to compare small vs. big government ideologies and to ask who stand for what.

So the Bush republicans which do look a lot like the Romney republicans who was for super big military, a war against the wrong target (Iraq), and not including the spending for that massive war in the actual budget, big government or small government?