US Presidential Election Debate #1

[jwinch2]

I also heard Romney say that there are 3 ways to reduce the deficit. Raise taxes, reduce spending and grow the economy. He said raising taxes reduces the growth of the economy, which causes less reduction of deficit. He compared Obama tax rate as what is happening to Spain and said we do not want to be like Spain.

I believe he specifically stated raising “revenue”, not raising “taxes”. His point was that if we grow the economy and more people have jobs, which politicians often refer to as “broadening the base”, then more people will be paying taxes, which will raise revenue and that this will help to lower the debt along with reducing spending.

 

[incense]

And, I might add, Jim Lehrer appeared surprisingly incompetent tonight in controlling the procedure of the debate.

How do you tell the President of the US that he needs to shut up and respect the time limits. He did the best he could.

 

[jwinch2]

I have a couple of questions for everyone. When Romney stated his health plan provides for preexisting conditions, is that true? I thought it provided only for those people who currently have preexisting conditions.

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you don’t have a pre-existing condition, then it isn’t pre-existing.

Also, is it correct, as Romney affirmed more than once, that he never stated he wanted to reduce the deficit by 5 trillion dollars?

Romney said he would not cut taxes by 5 trillion dollars, after the President made the claim repeatedly in an effort to shows that Romney’s plan to reduce the debt was not mathematically possible. His plan is to cut the deficit, but not by 5 trillion because we are only running 1 trillion dollar deficits per year at this time. If you want to talk about 5 trillion from the debt which is currently around 16 trillion, that is a different conversation, but not one that was had tonight in the context of your question.

I think what we have seen here is either the real Romney or, more likely, yet another reincarnation of his multifaceted persona. Regardless, his debate performance was very good. And, I might add, Jim Lehrer appeared surprisingly incompetent tonight in controlling the procedure of the debate.

I thought we saw the real Romney tonight.

 

[incense]

I believe he specifically stated raising “revenue”, not raising “taxes”. His point was that if we grow the economy and more people have jobs, which politicians often refer to as “broadening the base”, then more people will be paying taxes, which will raise revenue and that this will help to lower the debt along with reducing spending.

The question was about how would they reduce the deficit. Raising revenue can be done two ways, raising taxes and growing the economy, his points 1 & 3 respectively. But we agree that his point was that growing the economy is best, the best way to get tax income up too.

 

[incense]

Just thought of something else he said that I really liked. He would choose the government agencies to reduce by asking the simple question do we need them enough to pay them with money we will owe to China.

 

[jwinch2]

Just thought of something else he said that I really liked. He would choose the government agencies to reduce by asking the simple question do we need them enough to pay them with money we will owe to China.

I thought that was a good line as well.

 

[Faithdancer]

Though I’m registered American Independent, and out here in Californy Obama has already won the electoral votes, I’m happy Mitt romped and stomped tonight.

 

[meltzerboy]

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you don’t have a pre-existing condition, then it isn’t pre-existing. Romney said he would not cut taxes by 5 trillion dollars, after the President made the claim repeatedly in an effort to shows that Romney’s plan to reduce the debt was not mathematically possible. His plan is to cut the deficit, but not by 5 trillion because we are only running 1 trillion dollar deficits per year at this time. If you want to talk about 5 trillion from the debt which is currently around 16 trillion, that is a different conversation, but not one that was had tonight in the context of your question.

I thought we saw the real Romney tonight.

OK then, is it correct that Romney had never said anything prior to the debate about 5 trillion dollars being cut relative to taxes or the debt? And what exactly, if anything, does Romney’s healthcare plan say about preexisting conditions? I heard a pundit state it does not provide for anyone who may develop a preexisting condition in the future, but only for those people who currently have such a condition. Does that make any sense, or does Romney’s plan really say nothing about preexisting conditions?

 

[Fabrizet]

Romney did have an advantage going into the debate as he did have a lot of easy jabs on Obama due to his lack of productivity the past four years. He flawlessly exploited these faults while the president had nothing to stand on. I think Obama had better think of some strategy if he expects to serve a second term.

 

[jwinch2]

OK then, is it correct that Romney had never said anything prior to the debate about 5 trillion dollars being cut relative to taxes or the debt? And what exactly, if anything, does Romney’s healthcare plan say about preexisting conditions? I heard a pundit state it does not provide for anyone who may develop a preexisting condition in the future, but only for those people who currently have such a condition. Does that make any sense, or does Romney’s plan really say nothing about preexisting conditions?

The phrase “preexisting condition in the future”, does not make any sense to me. If you develop something down the road, then it was not preexisting. Unless is there is something I am not seeing in what you are saying…

I have not seen anything about Romney claiming to cut 5 trillion in taxes, other than Obama saying it in his stump speech or in his campaign ads.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I agree, Jason. I have never seen Romney look better on the stage. Or Obama worse.

you are soooooooo right! Romney looked like the wise man. very much in control.
Obama just didn’t appear convincing. he almost appeared defeated.

i wouldn’t count Obama out though. i am not sure what the other debates will cover.
Romney came out of the gates tonight and maintained the momentum throughout the debate. i just hope the undecideds were watching.

Romney will have to keep it up now for the remaining debates.

 

[Vangaurdian]

Romney wants to lower/eliminate the child tax credit. He basically acknowledged it tonight.
That’s right, he wants to penalize you through taxes for having kids.

boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/01/mitt-romney-tax-plan-would-offer-big-cuts-millionaires-raise-taxes-middle-class-brookings-analysts-say/3TBTf2GSlecutmVK97R6sK/story.html

“Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented,” Brookings reported, “and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits, ranging from the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families and children like the [earned income tax credit] and child tax credit.”

thenation.com/blog/170330/there-no-debate-mitt-romney-would-raise-taxes#

To achieve such revenue neutrality, Romney’s lower income-tax rates must be financed with an equal-value elimination or reduction in tax preferences. Offsetting the $360 billion therefore requires reducing tax expenditures by about 65 percent. Such a reduction would be unprecedented and require deep cuts in many popular tax benefits, including the mortgage interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, the deduction for charitable contributions, and benefits for low- and middle-income families like the earned income-tax credit and child tax credit.

Read the gory details here:
taxpolicycenter.org/
Tax Policy Center, table T11-0125

This is not an argument for Obama.
He hates babies too.

Not to mention both have no problems with signing tax payer funded abortion into law - because Romney has already done that. Anyone notice how proud he is of that? How he and Obama pat each other on the back for that?

 

[austenbosten]

Romney wants to lower/eliminate the child tax credit. He basically acknowledged it tonight.
That right, he wants to penalize you through taxes for having kids.

thenation.com/blog/170330/there-no-debate-mitt-romney-would-raise-taxes#

This is not an argument for Obama.
He hates babies too.

Not to mention he has no problems with signing tax payer funded abortion into law - because he has already done that. Anyone notice how proud he is of that? How he and Obama pat each other on the back for that?

Pulling a blog from an extremely liberally-biased source does not help your argument

 

[Faithdancer]

The undecided voters were indeed watching, and Romney won big with them- it’s all over the 'net.

 

[Vangaurdian]

Pulling a blog from an extremely liberally-biased source does not help your argument

Google is your friend. Updated my post with more sources.
Keep watching faux news, they never lie.


Please provide a link to support that he doesn’t plan on eliminating the child tax credit.
I’m open minded.

 

[austenbosten]

Google is your friend. Updated my post with more sources.
Keep watching faux news, they never lie.

Faux News…how wonderful in validating your argument by resorting so quickly to insults.

As for your sources both are opinions and no where is there factual proof of Mitt Romney wanting to cut the child tax credits. Just biased opinionated liberals making false and misleading assumptions like you are making tonight.

 

[austenbosten]

Please provide a link to support that he doesn’t plan on eliminating the child tax credit.
I’m open minded.

How about you provide me a link that he does support it, instead of relying heavily on biased liberals opinions.

 

[meltzerboy]

The phrase “preexisting condition in the future”, does not make any sense to me. If you develop something down the road, then it was not preexisting. Unless is there is something I am not seeing in what you are saying…

I have not seen anything about Romney claiming to cut 5 trillion in taxes, other than Obama saying it in his stump speech or in his campaign ads.

I realize it sounds like back-to-the-future, John-Kerry talk, but I mean, according to what I heard from a pundit, that in the future, people who have preexisting conditions will not be covered by Romney’s healthcare plan, while those who currently have preexisting conditions will be covered. I’m just wondering if this is mentioned at all in Romney’s plan.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Faux News…how wonderful in validating your argument by resorting so quickly to insults.

Where have you been? Fox News has been called Faux News so long now that it hardly counts as an insult.

 

[Vangaurdian]

Not only does Romney want to tax you for having kids, he wants you to be taxed for being married.

taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences…
These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC).

Again,
Please provide a link to the contrary.
Valid, unbiased source please.