First Debate: Elmer Gantry vs. Mr. Roberts.

[Sallow]

Romney's "Elmer Gantry" style may have "wowed" those not paying attention, but those in the know are going to unpack the plethora of outright lies, distortions and policy shifts rolled out by Romney last night. While Obama's "Mr. Roberts" seemed a bit stoic and flatfooted, he stayed on message and avoided any major gaffes..such as looking annoyed or losing his cool. Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

While I am not a big fan of the "Elmer Gantry" thing..it does seem to work in the short term.

Lets see how it works out in the longer term.

 

[del]

pssst, you can't make chicken salad form chicken shit.

 

[Sallow]

For those not in the know..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30TkCJGsXas]Elmer Gantry-Welcome to the House of God! - YouTube[/ame]

vs.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVNUmKvpm0k]Henry Fonda, Jack Lemmon & William Powell in "Mister Roberts" (1955) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney didn't say what the democrats wanted him to say so he lied.

 

[Oddball]

More like Elmer Fudd vs. Mr. Roberts.

 

[Sallow]

More like Elmer Fudd vs. Mr. Roberts.

Erm no.

 

[g5000]

Romney's "Elmer Gantry" style may have "wowed" those not paying attention, but those in the know are going to unpack the plethora of outright lies, distortions and policy shifts rolled out by Romney last night. While Obama's "Mr. Roberts" seemed a bit stoic and flatfooted, he stayed on message and avoided any major gaffes..such as looking annoyed or losing his cool. Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

While I am not a big fan of the "Elmer Gantry" thing..it does seem to work in the short term.

Lets see how it works out in the longer term.

Rommey is going to eliminate some deductions/loopholes/subsidies/etc. Doing so will raise revenues, which then means he can lower the tax rates.

It isn't that hard to understand if you have an intelligence above that of a peanut.

As for Obama, he was very dishonest. For example:

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.

Notice how he wants you to believe that just raising taxes on the rich will created millions of new jobs, create a surplus, and create a whole lot of new millionaires!

But what none of his piss drinkers have ever explained to me the many times I have asked is, if Clinton's tax rates were so orgasmically good for the country, why are you asking ONLY rich people to enjoy them again?

You see, it was not just rich people who had higher tax rates in the era of 23 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and new millionaires.

Obama does not want the Bush tax cuts to expire. He wants to raise taxes on the rich. This has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts.

Therefore, attempting to draw some kind of line to the Clinton era's surpluses is a big, fat lie.

.

 

[Some Guy]

Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

Maybe it's just me, but "taxes" is a fairly general term. You have tax rates and tax revenues. Romney said more than once that he wants to lower rates but eliminate loopholes to essentially keep revenues consistent. Last time i checked, one thing liberals complain about a lot are tax loopholes that favor the rich. Supposed bad guy and rich asshole wants to close loopholes? Why is this not being cheered by the liberals?

But back to the point. When Romney says he's not going to cut taxes, he may be referring to "tax revenues." If you have 4 of something, destroy two of them (lowering rates) but then replace them with 2 new ones (eliminating loopholes), you still have 4. That's the thinking anyway, it's just a matter of whether or not the voting populace buys it.

 

[del]

having four of something isn't so great when you need six.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
•Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
•The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
•In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
•The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
•Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
•The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

O's lack of economic policy is...well...what a community organizer would do. It's no surprise.

 

[g5000]

having four of something isn't so great when you need six.

I like Romney's criteria for spending.

"Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

In other words, do you NEED six?

.

 

[del]

having four of something isn't so great when you need six.

I like Romney's criteria for spending.

"Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

In other words, do you NEED six?

.

if you have six, you don't need to borrow from china.

duh

 

[clevergirl]

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase - Forbes

However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term.
•Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
•The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
•In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
•The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
•Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
•The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.

O's lack of economic policy is...well...what a community organizer would do. It's no surprise.

 

[Erand7899]

Romney's "Elmer Gantry" style may have "wowed" those not paying attention, but those in the know are going to unpack the plethora of outright lies, distortions and policy shifts rolled out by Romney last night. While Obama's "Mr. Roberts" seemed a bit stoic and flatfooted, he stayed on message and avoided any major gaffes..such as looking annoyed or losing his cool. Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

While I am not a big fan of the "Elmer Gantry" thing..it does seem to work in the short term.

Lets see how it works out in the longer term.

Rommey is going to eliminate some deductions/loopholes/subsidies/etc. Doing so will raise revenues, which then means he can lower the tax rates.

It isn't that hard to understand if you have an intelligence above that of a peanut.

As for Obama, he was very dishonest. For example:

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.

Notice how he wants you to believe that just raising taxes on the rich will created millions of new jobs, create a surplus, and create a whole lot of new millionaires!

But what none of his piss drinkers have ever explained to me the many times I have asked is, if Clinton's tax rates were so orgasmically good for the country, why are you asking ONLY rich people to enjoy them again?

You see, it was not just rich people who had higher tax rates in the era of 23 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and new millionaires.

Obama does not want the Bush tax cuts to expire. He wants to raise taxes on the rich. This has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts.

Therefore, attempting to draw some kind of line to the Clinton era's surpluses is a big, fat lie.

.

Although the Clinton era surpluses never really existed, they did come close to zeroing out the deficit. Neither Clinton, nor his tax increases had a damn thing to do with the great economy that we had in the 90's. We had a huge dot.com boom going strong, and we had a huge housing boom going strong. A house of cards, built on overuse of credit and extreme speculation.

Those two booms drove the economy to low unemployment, massive profits, and high tax revenues. Couple that with welfare reform that significantly cut the growth in entitlement programs, and you have a vastly reduced deficit.

For the people, you have happy times. They cashed in the growing equities in their homes, and maxed out their credit cards, expecting to pay them off with future equity increases. They lived high on the hog, bought lots of toys, and the economy was going great guns, or so we thought.

 

[g5000]

having four of something isn't so great when you need six.

I like Romney's criteria for spending.

"Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

In other words, do you NEED six?

.

if you have six, you don't need to borrow from china.

duh

Here's the thing. The Democrats are the tax and spend party. The Republicans are the borrow and spend party.

When it comes to taxing more, the Democrats are the biggest cowards on the planet. They say, "Let's tax the rich a little bit more." And all their piss drinkers cheer and say it must be done.

But just try and tell those same people we need to raise THEIR taxes back to the Clinton era rates. Then they are, "Whoa! Hey! That affects ME!!!" and they get all indignant like.

So Obama takes the coward's way out. "Let's make the OTHER GUY OVER THERE pay for all this shit you want!"

The crowd roars its approval.


On the Republican side, they talk about smaller government. "We want a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub."

But in reality, when Republicans had full control of the government, we practically turned into a police state. The government grew and grew and grew, and we saw the deficit doubled.

Republicans are all about shrinking government...until it is time to give up their piece of the pie. "OH HELL NO! Take it away from that black guy over there!"


We are a nation of hypocrites.

.

 

[Sallow]

Romney's "Elmer Gantry" style may have "wowed" those not paying attention, but those in the know are going to unpack the plethora of outright lies, distortions and policy shifts rolled out by Romney last night. While Obama's "Mr. Roberts" seemed a bit stoic and flatfooted, he stayed on message and avoided any major gaffes..such as looking annoyed or losing his cool. Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

While I am not a big fan of the "Elmer Gantry" thing..it does seem to work in the short term.

Lets see how it works out in the longer term.

Rommey is going to eliminate some deductions/loopholes/subsidies/etc. Doing so will raise revenues, which then means he can lower the tax rates.

It isn't that hard to understand if you have an intelligence above that of a peanut.

As for Obama, he was very dishonest. For example:

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.

Notice how he wants you to believe that just raising taxes on the rich will created millions of new jobs, create a surplus, and create a whole lot of new millionaires!

But what none of his piss drinkers have ever explained to me the many times I have asked is, if Clinton's tax rates were so orgasmically good for the country, why are you asking ONLY rich people to enjoy them again?

You see, it was not just rich people who had higher tax rates in the era of 23 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and new millionaires.

Obama does not want the Bush tax cuts to expire. He wants to raise taxes on the rich. This has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts.

Therefore, attempting to draw some kind of line to the Clinton era's surpluses is a big, fat lie.

.

1. Eliminate what loophole? He hasn't identified a single "loophole" he wants to eliminate and, as I pointed out..he was defending the loopholes for oil companies. Romney keeps pointing out that the CBO's don't score his "growth". What growth? The same plan was tried before under Reagan. Growth came when Reagan spent massive amounts of money on defense. Then..in his second term..he had to raise taxes. GW Bush's "growth" was made possible by cutting interest rates to zero..and starting 2 wars. These sorts of policies never have worked.

2. Bush's tax cuts cost the American people a great deal of money. And? It bought them nothing in return. Rich folks, like Romney, tend to keep their money..not spend it. Romney squirrels his money away overseas in Swiss bank accounts. And he's not atypical. This goes along with Rich folks making sure labor doesn't share in profit. You ever sit in on a corporate meeting? I have. The number one concern is labor costs. They never ever discuss CEO compensation..which is something like 400:1 now. How exactly is Romney going to change that? Oh yeah..by giving CEOs more money.

Got it.

 

[Sallow]

Personally? I wish Obama would have called him on some of the bullshit. Something like:

Mitt: I am not going to cut taxes, I am going to lower rates..

Obama: Wait a minute, what exactly do you think those rates are? That's what the government draws it's revenue from. The rest of the world refers to them as taxes. So when you say you want to lower rates..what you are really saying is that you want to cut taxes.

But that didn't happen.

Maybe it's just me, but "taxes" is a fairly general term. You have tax rates and tax revenues. Romney said more than once that he wants to lower rates but eliminate loopholes to essentially keep revenues consistent. Last time i checked, one thing liberals complain about a lot are tax loopholes that favor the rich. Supposed bad guy and rich asshole wants to close loopholes? Why is this not being cheered by the liberals?

But back to the point. When Romney says he's not going to cut taxes, he may be referring to "tax revenues." If you have 4 of something, destroy two of them (lowering rates) but then replace them with 2 new ones (eliminating loopholes), you still have 4. That's the thinking anyway, it's just a matter of whether or not the voting populace buys it.

He's playing a game of semantics.