Romney had to win the debate... He did.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Lie about what? Granted it's only about 15 votes so it does not matter, but Obama gained 15 votes not by what he said or did, but by what Romney did, also dont tell me what took place in my house is a lie, you were not there. I guess the truth hurts, but it is the truth, Romney lost 15 votes last night.

Are you TM's better half??

 

[Jarhead]

Can someone, anyone tell me how Mitt plans to cut everyone's tax rate by 20% and keep it deficit neutral? Obviously, Lady Gut Slinger can't, but I knew this going in. I am hoping some of you other Romney supporters can tell me how, as Romeny's website provides NO specifics, much as Romney did last night.

you didnt hear specifics becuase you didnt want to hear specifics.

But he was quite clear about how he expects his plan to work.

 

[VaYank5150]

I don't have.. He already did.. SEVERAL times.. LOL! America heard him.. some of you hacks didn't want to.. That's your problem.

OK...so YOU have no clue how he plans to do it. Check. Do any of your OTHER Romney supporters know the math behind how he plans to do it, SPECIFICALLY?

Yes. And as was said already, he explained it lastr night.

You lower taxes across the board....this will allow the llp's and the s-corps out there...the small businesses that are responsible for 75% of the workforce....to do what they want to do....grow their companies....for reasons of greed, ego, wanting to be big...most business owners want to grow...

When they hire someone...that person will pay income tax and the employer will pay payroll tax...and those two together will add up to well more than the decrease of 20% on the one employer....and if he/she hires 2 or 3 or 5 or 10....well.....the increase in revenue will grow at an increasing rate.

The only "what if" in the plan is....will they hire?

Like I said....most llps and s-corps want to grow...for a multitude of reasons.

I heard that....but just as Obama has been unable to create jobs, there is no "magic" to make me think Mitt will do any better in this area. According to his GOP, extending the Bush tax cuts should have helped to create jobs, and it didn't.

So, on day one, when Romney takes office, he cuts everyones's tax rate by 20%. How long before enough jobs are created to cover the losses in revenue? Show me the math, please. I find it very difficult to believe that creating even a "buttload" of minimum wage jobs will cover the tax cuts.

 

[Conservative]

I don't have.. He already did.. SEVERAL times.. LOL! America heard him.. some of you hacks didn't want to.. That's your problem.

OK...so YOU have no clue how he plans to do it. Check. Do any of your OTHER Romney supporters know the math behind how he plans to do it, SPECIFICALLY?

Yes. And as was said already, he explained it lastr night.

You lower taxes across the board....this will allow the llp's and the s-corps out there...the small businesses that are responsible for 75% of the workforce....to do what they want to do....grow their companies....for reasons of greed, ego, wanting to be big...most business owners want to grow...

When they hire someone...that person will pay income tax and the employer will pay payroll tax...and those two together will add up to well more than the decrease of 20% on the one employer....and if he/she hires 2 or 3 or 5 or 10....well.....the increase in revenue will grow at an increasing rate.

The only "what if" in the plan is....will they hire?

Like I said....most llps and s-corps want to grow...for a multitude of reasons.

FACTS... it's what's for dinner.

 

[Conservative]

lie about what? Granted it's only about 15 votes so it does not matter, but obama gained 15 votes not by what he said or did, but by what romney did, also dont tell me what took place in my house is a lie, you were not there. I guess the truth hurts, but it is the truth, romney lost 15 votes last night.

lair

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep. And I can state that I will flap my arms and fly. That does not mean that my plan will work, although it has as much chance of working as does Romney's plan to reduce the deficit by reducing taxes.

The last time there was a reduction in the deficit, Clinton raised taxes and cut spending, exactly as the President is proposing to do now.

 

[Old Rocks]

These are the numbers that count. Only if the debate substancially changes those numbers can the GOP claim that last nights debate was a clear win for them.

President Obama 269 Governor Romney 181

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

 

[Jarhead]

OK...so YOU have no clue how he plans to do it. Check. Do any of your OTHER Romney supporters know the math behind how he plans to do it, SPECIFICALLY?

Yes. And as was said already, he explained it lastr night.

You lower taxes across the board....this will allow the llp's and the s-corps out there...the small businesses that are responsible for 75% of the workforce....to do what they want to do....grow their companies....for reasons of greed, ego, wanting to be big...most business owners want to grow...

When they hire someone...that person will pay income tax and the employer will pay payroll tax...and those two together will add up to well more than the decrease of 20% on the one employer....and if he/she hires 2 or 3 or 5 or 10....well.....the increase in revenue will grow at an increasing rate.

The only "what if" in the plan is....will they hire?

Like I said....most llps and s-corps want to grow...for a multitude of reasons.

I heard that....but just as Obama has been unable to create jobs, there is no "magic" to make me think Mitt will do any better in this area. According to his GOP, extending the Bush tax cuts should have helped to create jobs, and it didn't.

So, on day one, when Romney takes office, he cuts everyones's tax rate by 20%. How long before enough jobs are created to cover the losses in revenue? Show me the math, please. I find it very difficult to believe that creating even a "buttload" of minimum wage jobs will cover the tax cuts.

VaYank....this is a much bigger debate than just the plan...there are many factors that have been inhibiting job growth over the past 2 years.

Obama is fghting himself....you may not agree....but I see it that he is.

He pushed through the affordable care act. This is a burden on employers. He should have waited. Instead, he did it when jobs was the number onbe issue...so employers are sitting back.

He enacted a multitude of reghulations. Sure, many of them are necessary....but many of them are appeasing the far left and doing nothing else....but again, costing employers money.

He has refused to take cap and trade out of the diaogue. That too, is concerning to the employers.

You can not extend the Bush tax cuts, and then tell the employers "you will be paying more for healthcare for your employees...and paying more for shipping...and paying more for making the products you make...and maybe having to pay more for your emissions...and then say..."I didnt raise your taxes yet you still are not hiring"....

There is a time and a place for everything. Obama is wrong if he thinks keeping taxes low but increasing OTHER operating costs will result in hiring.

 

[Jarhead]

These are the numbers that count. Only if the debate substancially changes those numbers can the GOP claim that last nights debate was a clear win for them.

President Obama 269 Governor Romney 181

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

lol.

You are pathetic.

It wasd a debate about direction....a debate about knowledge...a debate about ideas.

Romney was the clear leader in knowledge, ideas and substance.

But if you want to ignore that and simply talke about numbers....go for it.

Me? I am looking to see how my children can have the same life I had.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yes. And as was said already, he explained it lastr night.

You lower taxes across the board....this will allow the llp's and the s-corps out there...the small businesses that are responsible for 75% of the workforce....to do what they want to do....grow their companies....for reasons of greed, ego, wanting to be big...most business owners want to grow...

When they hire someone...that person will pay income tax and the employer will pay payroll tax...and those two together will add up to well more than the decrease of 20% on the one employer....and if he/she hires 2 or 3 or 5 or 10....well.....the increase in revenue will grow at an increasing rate.

The only "what if" in the plan is....will they hire?

Like I said....most llps and s-corps want to grow...for a multitude of reasons.

I heard that....but just as Obama has been unable to create jobs, there is no "magic" to make me think Mitt will do any better in this area. According to his GOP, extending the Bush tax cuts should have helped to create jobs, and it didn't.

So, on day one, when Romney takes office, he cuts everyones's tax rate by 20%. How long before enough jobs are created to cover the losses in revenue? Show me the math, please. I find it very difficult to believe that creating even a "buttload" of minimum wage jobs will cover the tax cuts.

VaYank....this is a much bigger debate than just the plan...there are many factors that have been inhibiting job growth over the past 2 years.

Obama is fghting himself....you may not agree....but I see it that he is.

He pushed through the affordable care act. This is a burden on employers. He should have waited. Instead, he did it when jobs was the number onbe issue...so employers are sitting back.

He enacted a multitude of reghulations. Sure, many of them are necessary....but many of them are appeasing the far left and doing nothing else....but again, costing employers money.

He has refused to take cap and trade out of the diaogue. That too, is concerning to the employers.

You can not extend the Bush tax cuts, and then tell the employers "you will be paying more for healthcare for your employees...and paying more for shipping...and paying more for making the products you make...and maybe having to pay more for your emissions...and then say..."I didnt raise your taxes yet you still are not hiring"....

There is a time and a place for everything. Obama is wrong if he thinks keeping taxes low but increasing OTHER operating costs will result in hiring.

As you already know, I disagree that Obama's ACA or new regulations have had a stifling affect on employers. I say this based solely on my own (the one I work for) company's reactions since Obama took office. Our company saw this as a great time to invest, not only in R&D, technology, infrastructure and PR, but also in employees. We have hired more in the past three years than we have in the previous 10.

Now, to Romney's specifics. He stated that in addition to his "magical" job creation plan (12 million new jobs in the first year), that he plans to pay for th 20% tax cuts by eliminating deductions. For people like me in the middle class, does he plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? If so, POOF, my taxes will actually increase.

 

[Jarhead]

I heard that....but just as Obama has been unable to create jobs, there is no "magic" to make me think Mitt will do any better in this area. According to his GOP, extending the Bush tax cuts should have helped to create jobs, and it didn't.

So, on day one, when Romney takes office, he cuts everyones's tax rate by 20%. How long before enough jobs are created to cover the losses in revenue? Show me the math, please. I find it very difficult to believe that creating even a "buttload" of minimum wage jobs will cover the tax cuts.

VaYank....this is a much bigger debate than just the plan...there are many factors that have been inhibiting job growth over the past 2 years.

Obama is fghting himself....you may not agree....but I see it that he is.

He pushed through the affordable care act. This is a burden on employers. He should have waited. Instead, he did it when jobs was the number onbe issue...so employers are sitting back.

He enacted a multitude of reghulations. Sure, many of them are necessary....but many of them are appeasing the far left and doing nothing else....but again, costing employers money.

He has refused to take cap and trade out of the diaogue. That too, is concerning to the employers.

You can not extend the Bush tax cuts, and then tell the employers "you will be paying more for healthcare for your employees...and paying more for shipping...and paying more for making the products you make...and maybe having to pay more for your emissions...and then say..."I didnt raise your taxes yet you still are not hiring"....

There is a time and a place for everything. Obama is wrong if he thinks keeping taxes low but increasing OTHER operating costs will result in hiring.

As you already know, I disagree that Obama's ACA or new regulations have had a stifling affect on employers. I say this based solely on my own (the one I work for) company's reactions since Obama took office. Our company saw this as a great time to invest, not only in R&D, technology, infrastructure and PR, but also in employees. We have hired more in the past three years than we have in the previous 10.

Now, to Romney's specifics. He stated that in addition to his "magical" job creation plan (12 million new jobs in the first year), that he plans to pay for th 20% tax cuts by eliminating deductions. For people like me in the middle class, does he plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? If so, POOF, my taxes will actually increase.

There is no way he will eliminate the deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. Romney is well aware that the affordability for many to purchase a home were based on those two deductions.

However, there are a multitude of deductions middle class folks NEVER get to capitalize on....and my guess is those deductions will be the ones tossed.

 

[VaYank5150]

VaYank....this is a much bigger debate than just the plan...there are many factors that have been inhibiting job growth over the past 2 years.

Obama is fghting himself....you may not agree....but I see it that he is.

He pushed through the affordable care act. This is a burden on employers. He should have waited. Instead, he did it when jobs was the number onbe issue...so employers are sitting back.

He enacted a multitude of reghulations. Sure, many of them are necessary....but many of them are appeasing the far left and doing nothing else....but again, costing employers money.

He has refused to take cap and trade out of the diaogue. That too, is concerning to the employers.

You can not extend the Bush tax cuts, and then tell the employers "you will be paying more for healthcare for your employees...and paying more for shipping...and paying more for making the products you make...and maybe having to pay more for your emissions...and then say..."I didnt raise your taxes yet you still are not hiring"....

There is a time and a place for everything. Obama is wrong if he thinks keeping taxes low but increasing OTHER operating costs will result in hiring.

As you already know, I disagree that Obama's ACA or new regulations have had a stifling affect on employers. I say this based solely on my own (the one I work for) company's reactions since Obama took office. Our company saw this as a great time to invest, not only in R&D, technology, infrastructure and PR, but also in employees. We have hired more in the past three years than we have in the previous 10.

Now, to Romney's specifics. He stated that in addition to his "magical" job creation plan (12 million new jobs in the first year), that he plans to pay for th 20% tax cuts by eliminating deductions. For people like me in the middle class, does he plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? If so, POOF, my taxes will actually increase.

There is no way he will eliminate the deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. Romney is well aware that the affordability for many to purchase a home were based on those two deductions.

However, there are a multitude of deductions middle class folks NEVER get to capitalize on....and my guess is those deductions will be the ones tossed.

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

 

[Jarhead]

As you already know, I disagree that Obama's ACA or new regulations have had a stifling affect on employers. I say this based solely on my own (the one I work for) company's reactions since Obama took office. Our company saw this as a great time to invest, not only in R&D, technology, infrastructure and PR, but also in employees. We have hired more in the past three years than we have in the previous 10.

Now, to Romney's specifics. He stated that in addition to his "magical" job creation plan (12 million new jobs in the first year), that he plans to pay for th 20% tax cuts by eliminating deductions. For people like me in the middle class, does he plan to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? If so, POOF, my taxes will actually increase.

There is no way he will eliminate the deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. Romney is well aware that the affordability for many to purchase a home were based on those two deductions.

However, there are a multitude of deductions middle class folks NEVER get to capitalize on....and my guess is those deductions will be the ones tossed.

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

 

[VaYank5150]

There is no way he will eliminate the deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes. Romney is well aware that the affordability for many to purchase a home were based on those two deductions.

However, there are a multitude of deductions middle class folks NEVER get to capitalize on....and my guess is those deductions will be the ones tossed.

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

 

[Jarhead]

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

what are Obama's specifics for cutting 4 trillion. I heard the principles...but not the specifics.

 

[Jarhead]

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

Va...he was VERY specific with how he plans to create jobs.

Not increase taxes, eliminate rediculous regulations...open up Alaska for drilling.....allow for more off shore drilling permits.....approve the pipeline....

You may not want him to do those things from an ideological strandpoint...and I respect that....but that dopesnt mean he was not specific with his plan.....he was very specific.

 

[Jarhead]

Such as? Are you starting to better understand my claims about Romney's lack of specifics?

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

Thats your ideology...and if you feel that way, then dont vote for him.

But to answer your question.....the Secretary of Defense is the best qualified to answer it.....and he said that the Obama cuts could be catastrophic.

From my ideological standpoint.....we are in a dnagerous world./ History has shown that those that appear to be the strongest militarily may have the least amount fof friends...but they also have the least amount of worry about a foreign attack.

 

[VaYank5150]

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

what are Obama's specifics for cutting 4 trillion. I heard the principles...but not the specifics.

Raise the tax rates on those making more than $250,000. Eliminate waste and fraud within our government programs such as MediCare. Cut the DoD budget. Use some of the funds currently being used to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Romney did what he had to do. He convinced America that he is not your run of the mill, batshit crazy Conservative. Obama has been painting Romney as out of touch with mainstream America. Romney went more to the center and offered an alternative that wasn't as scary as predicted

Romney still hasn't shed his image as being for the wealthy. He talked about how bad things are for the middle class, but didn't offer much to help them

Obama was listless and showed little enthusiasm. The only positive is that he avoided a major gaffe that would cause a reversal

Romney will draw closer in the polls. Obama still has an overwhelming lead in electoral votes and swing states. I think some states that were put into the Obama column (Ohio, NH) may go back into play but I don't think Romney did enough to win

He did what he had to win: he tossed Conservaties under the bus. He promised compromise, promised not to lower taxes on the wealthy, and promised to hold on to government regulation and parts of Obamacare that are popular.

Obama clearly wasn't ready for Romney to dash to the middle and lost the debate.

I too don't think one debate win will change the game yet, but we do have a race now. If Obama had won this would all be over.

 

[VaYank5150]

Such as not having to pay taxes on offshore accounts.

VaYank...the left has been talking about all of the "loopholes" and "Tax havens" that only the wealthy such as Romney can capitalize on. What are they? I dont know. I have never been able to use them, so I never looked for them.

Cap gains is what it is all about......those with cap gains who do not pay regular income tax, take those cap gains and invest them in tax free situations.....I believe those are the ones who will feel it.

As for specifics...lets look at specifics...

According to Obama, he will cut into the deficit by increasing taxes to 40% on those making 250K or more...

Sounds good to those on the left..

But where are the specifics?

That will generate less than 100 Billion dollars....and we hgave a deeficit of 1.3 trillion.....so with that tax increase we decrease our deficit to 1.2 trillion.....so then he cuts spending by his proposed 2.5 times the increase in tax revenue.....so about .25 trillion...

Leaving us with a trillion dollar deficit.....oh joy.

Why are those "specifics" not being questioned by anyone?

As Romney made clear....

He worked with a legislature comprised of 87% democrats....if he walked in with "specifics" and said "pass this", he would have gotten nothing done.

Instead he presents "principles"....and he then works with both parties to come up with the specifics to acheive it.

You may want to criticize that philosophy....but I like it.

You are not going to get that sort of "only Romney needs to provide specifics" answer from me. What I thought was enlightening last night was that Obama was VERY specific. However, I began to ponder...."OK, Mr. President, since you have this specific plan to cut $4T from our defecit, which is great, but WHY are you holding it on your pocket after nearly four years? Why haven't you implemented it in your first term?"

Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, so I think that "debate" is a waste of time. I don't see how Romney can spit all over the ACA, while holding up his brilliant plan both at the same time.

Either way, the meme of it's all about jobs for Romney doesn't play for me, as he doesn't have any specifics on how he plans to create jobs, nor which types of jobs, nor how long it will take. Add to that, his tax cut plan is dependent on said job creation so as not to add to our defecit, and I see nothing more than a "vision", and if a "vision" is all he's got, well, we already have one of those in office now.

And finally, his desire to find budget cuts almost everywhere else except the bloated DoD budget does not fly with me. Why should the DoD budget be some sacred cow that is untouchable? How much do we really need? Can anyone answer that for sure?

Va...he was VERY specific with how he plans to create jobs.

Not increase taxes, eliminate rediculous regulations...open up Alaska for drilling.....allow for more off shore drilling permits.....approve the pipeline....

You may not want him to do those things from an ideological strandpoint...and I respect that....but that dopesnt mean he was not specific with his plan.....he was very specific.

He never stated which regulations he would eliminate to create more jobs. I do not believe there are 12 million jobs in the oil and natural gas sector. Do you?