Who Won the Debate?

[woolfe9999]

Anandtech 107 Biden 46 Ryan
CNN 48% Ryan 44% Biden
ABC 14456 Ryan 13500 Biden

You left out the CBS poll which had Biden 19 points ahead. You also failed to mention something inconsistent with what you're trying to suggest here: the ATP&N presidential debate poll actually showed a wider margin for Romney than most of the scientific polls. Maybe the lefties here are being fairly objective and Biden won this debate? The CBS poll was of undecided voters, so that is an assessment of a relatively neutral crowd...

 

[Fritzo]

In order to agree with that, I'd have to be convinced that Obama has, on the whole, raised taxes. Has he? Not that I've seen.

Truthfully, in at least my case, my monthly health insurance payment went down $218 after Obamacare allowed high-risk employees at my job to be put on a separate health plan.

As for taxes, I haven't had anything raised or lowered.

 

[emperus]

I don't think I said otherwise.

You were talking about Bush. He lowered taxes and since there was a deficit you inferred that lowering taxes in and of itself was to blame. To which I point out that a deficit isn't evidence of it being caused by a tax cut.

No. Voodoo economics claim that if you cut taxes you will generate enough economic activity to pay for the tax cuts, therefore there will be no overall loss in tax revenue.

Again, you're changing the debate. I never argued that the deficit is evidence of being caused by a tax cut. It may be so. I am arguing that Paul Ryan is claiming that the economic activity generated by a tax cut will offset the tax cut itself. And furthermore there has never been any proof that that has happened. When Reagan did it, he eventually raised taxes. Bush just did it and we have had deficits as far as the eye can see.

Now if you are supporting Ryan's plan and that theory. Don't you think it is incumbent upon you to show the economics that support that claim and/or instances where that theory had in fact been tested and proven.

 

[dank69]

Truthfully, in at least my case, my monthly health insurance payment went down $218 after Obamacare allowed high-risk employees at my job to be put on a separate health plan.

As for taxes, I haven't had anything raised or lowered.

Typical American

 

[LegendKiller]

You're a legend.

I'm talking about tax policy only you brought in military spending as if it has anything at all to do with it.

A deficit /= deficits caused by tax cuts.

I was originally pointing out your issue. You take a very simplistic viewpoint on life.

Sure, one could say that if you have a $1,000/mo mortgage and have $1,000/mo to spend on it and everything else must stay the same and you take a pay cut to $800/mo you should just sell your house to reduce your mortgage expense but life isn't that easy (nor is this example).

A deficit is a spending *AND* revenue problem. If you purposefully decrease revenue and don't give any reasonable concessions to cut spending, like the military, then you will run deficits. In that respect it is a revenue AND spending problem.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Typical American

So tax cuts are good? :biggrin:

 

[dank69]

So tax cuts are good? :biggrin:

I suppose, if you think that person A pointing out that event B did happen, that automatically means that person A thinks that event B is good.

 

[thraashman]

So tax cuts are good? :biggrin:

Tax cuts are good if they go to a subset of the population who will actually put that money back into the economy. The lower class, the middle class. Have you noticed what happened when we heavily cut taxes that affect the upper class? Well we didn't get more jobs, the economy eventually tanked, and the rich and corporations currently have record amounts of cash on hand that they aren't putting back into the economy.

Just like how Romney's "tax cuts" he claims he wants to be deficit neutral will require elimination of more loopholes than are mathematically possible without causing a massive net tax increase on the middle class.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I suppose, if you think that person A pointing out that event B did happen, that automatically means that person A thinks that event B is good.

I asked you a question to affirm what you tacitly implied...I didn't make any conclusions based on faulty logic.

Please answer the question.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Tax cuts are good if they go to a subset of the population who will actually put that money back into the economy. The lower class, the middle class. Have you noticed what happened when we heavily cut taxes that affect the upper class? Well we didn't get more jobs, the economy eventually tanked, and the rich and corporations currently have record amounts of cash on hand that they aren't putting back into the economy.

Just like how Romney's "tax cuts" he claims he wants to be deficit neutral will require elimination of more loopholes than are mathematically possible without causing a massive net tax increase on the middle class.

I completely agree with you except for one point...I don't think our economy tanked because the rich got heavy tax cuts.

If this country is ever going to be deficit neutral...it will be at the expense of the middle class and poor.

 

[dank69]

I asked you a question to affirm what you tacitly implied...I didn't make any conclusions based on faulty logic.

Please answer the question.

I suppose I "tacitly implied" that event B is good, if person A pointing out that event B happened when person C said he doesn't know if event B happened "tacitly implies" that person A thinks that event B is good.

To answer your question, tax cuts can be good in some situations and tax cuts can be bad in other situations. Feel better now?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

To answer your question, tax cuts can be good in some situations and tax cuts can be bad in other situations. Feel better now?

How about the situation we're currently faced with? Tax increases, tax cuts, or leave everything alone?

 

[khon]

One thing that bother me about Romney/Ryan, is the strange mix of specifics and vagueness.

They say they don't know which deductions they will close, or which spending cuts they will make, but at the same time they say their plan with create 12 million jobs in the first four years. So they're claiming to know the outcome, while admitting that they don't know the plan. How could anyone possibly take that seriously ?

Anyway, rant aside I think Biden won, especially on Syria/Afghanistan segments, where Ryan's inexperience really showed.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Obama isn't taking credit for the low taxes. Why is this so hard for you to register? Follow the conversation:

DanK: FuzzyBee, you raised taxes.
FuzzyBee: I'm not even in politics.
DanK: You expect us to believe that taxes are low because of you?

If I had that conversation with you, you'd think I was a fucking nutcase. Congrats on looking like a nutcase.

Well, why say it? *Of course* he wants to have credit for the low taxes, or he wouldn't have made a point to say it.

I don't think you're a nutcase (although I do believe that calling someone names just reflects back on you). I think your bias just shades you from seeing fact.

 

[FuzzyBee]

FuzzyBee: the purpose of fact-checking is to assess not merely the literal veracity of factual statements, but whether those factual statements are being presented fairly and in appropriate context. The issue isn't whether or not the number of unemployed women was higher, but rather Romney's portrayal of this as being a result of Obama's policies.

That is why it is a half-truth -- because Romney is not measuring the increase or decrease of employment in a time frame that accurately reflects Obama's policies.

As another example:

While it’s true that by most measures, the number of jobs in the United States has increased on Obama’s watch, Clinton has done some cherry-picking in coming up with the 4.5 million number. But he chose his words carefully in describing the jobs picture. He said, "In the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs." On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

Context? Especially considering

First of all, Clinton was using private-sector job figures, not total job figures. Right off the bat, that paints Obama’s numbers favorably, since government jobs have declined during much of Obama’s term.

... yet that's "Mostly True"

 

[dank69]

Well, why say it? *Of course* he wants to have credit for the low taxes, or he wouldn't have made a point to say it.

Why would FuzzyBee say he isn't in politics in the hypothetical conversation? *Of course* he wants to have credit for not being in politics, or he wouldn't have made a point to say it.

I don't think you're a nutcase (although I do believe that calling someone names just reflects back on you). I think your bias just shades you from seeing fact.

If you don't want me to call you a nutcase, THINK about your positions before stating them.

 

[dank69]

How about the situation we're currently faced with? Tax increases, tax cuts, or leave everything alone?

I am not an economist. I think that *all* Bush tax cuts should expire until we get our debt under control. But economists tell us that that would be bad for our economy right now, so I think letting them expire for the wealthy (>$250k) is the best we can do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am not an economist. I think that *all* Bush tax cuts should expire until we get our debt under control. But economists tell us that that would be bad for our economy right now, so I think letting them expire for the wealthy (>$250k) is the best we can do.

Damn...we actually agree on something! Except I don't think >$250k is wealthy....more like >$500k+ imo. But even with that tax increase it will have minimal impact on our deficits. The real money is in taxing the middle class.

How do you feel about spending?

 

[buckshot24]

No. Voodoo economics claim that if you cut taxes you will generate enough economic activity to pay for the tax cuts, therefore there will be no overall loss in tax revenue.

Again, you're changing the debate. I never argued that the deficit is evidence of being caused by a tax cut. It may be so. I am arguing that Paul Ryan is claiming that the economic activity generated by a tax cut will offset the tax cut itself. And furthermore there has never been any proof that that has happened. When Reagan did it, he eventually raised taxes. Bush just did it and we have had deficits as far as the eye can see.

Now if you are supporting Ryan's plan and that theory. Don't you think it is incumbent upon you to show the economics that support that claim and/or instances where that theory had in fact been tested and proven.

You said Bush tried it and we had deficits, did you not?

 

[dank69]

Damn...we actually agree on something! Except I don't think >$250k is wealthy....more like >$500k+ imo. But even with that tax increase it will have minimal impact on our deficits. The real money is in taxing the middle class.

It will have minimal impact at first, but that money will be kept out of off shore bank accounts and pumped back into the economy here. On top of that, the business owners making >$250k profit each year will have more incentive to reinvest that money rather than let it go to the government. These two factors should give a nice boost to our current recovery. Once our economy is roaring again, we can re-examine letting the rest of the tax cuts expire.

How do you feel about spending?

I think military spending needs to be scaled back. I think healthcare costs need government intervention to get them under control. I think education costs need government intervention to get them under control.

 

[umbrella39]

Anandtech 107 Biden 46 Ryan
CNN 48% Ryan 44% Biden
ABC 14456 Ryan 13500 Biden

You forgot 2 figures

Anandtech 25 Obama 192 Romney
Matt1970 Utter Fail

Seems one group can't bring themselves to ever tell the truth. I'm honestly starting to think you aren't bright enough to figure when you are making an ass of yourself...

 

[buckshot24]

I was originally pointing out your issue. You take a very simplistic viewpoint on life.

Sure, one could say that if you have a $1,000/mo mortgage and have $1,000/mo to spend on it and everything else must stay the same and you take a pay cut to $800/mo you should just sell your house to reduce your mortgage expense but life isn't that easy (nor is this example).

A deficit is a spending *AND* revenue problem. If you purposefully decrease revenue and don't give any reasonable concessions to cut spending, like the military, then you will run deficits. In that respect it is a revenue AND spending problem.

Yeah, I agree, we can spend more than we bring in even if we have a 100% tax rate. We can have the perfect tax rate and still spend too much.

I probably overstated the case. Deficits are created by spending more than what is coming in.

 

[buckshot24]

You forgot 2 figures

Anandtech 25 Obama 192 Romney
Matt1970 Utter Fail

Seems one group can't bring themselves to ever tell the truth. I'm honestly starting to think you aren't bright enough to figure when you are making an ass of yourself...

Romney kicked Obama's ass and he wasn't a dick about it. Biden was a dick and a lot of his points probably were lost by being a dick.

Your evidence doesn't prove anything other than the fact that Romney kicked more ass than Biden did. I think if Biden dialed it back a little bit he could have done better, but he didn't.

 

[buckshot24]

It will have minimal impact at first, but that money will be kept out of off shore bank accounts and pumped back into the economy here

Why do you think people move their money offshore?

 

[umbrella39]

Romney kicked Obama's ass and he wasn't a dick about it. Biden was a dick and a lot of his points probably were lost by being a dick.

Your evidence doesn't prove anything other than the fact that Romney kicked more ass than Biden did. I think if Biden dialed it back a little bit he could have done better, but he didn't.

LOL... We are talking about the polls HERE. No where else. Clearly one side of the aisle here cannot ever bring themselves to be honest politically... You both can keep flailing if you want. Just know how easily you are spotted...