Wednesday night saw the first of three Presidential debates, and one Vice Presidential Debate, in the month of October. The first debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney took place at the University of Denver in Colorado. The topics focused on domestic policy with Jim Lehrer, host of NewsHour on PBS, moderating.
Original Air Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Transcript: Full Oct. 3 Debate Transcript
Full Video:
Report from the Wall Street Journal:
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clashed over taxes Wednesday night from the start of their first presidential debate, with each presenting his plan as the best way to revive growth and help the middle class.
Mr. Romney said he wanted to eliminate "deductions, credits and exemptions." He rejected charges that his tax plan would favor the wealthy, or make America's finances worse, saying, "I won't put in place a tax plan that adds to the deficit."
Mr. Obama said his opponent's plan would inevitably result in a higher budget deficit or large cuts to federal programs. "It's math, it's arithmetic," the president said, later adding, "That's not a recipe for job growth."
The presidential candidates met at the University of Denver for the first of three televised presidential debates. The candidates ranged widely over other domestic policies during the first hour of the debate, discussing energy, Medicare and the deficit among other issues.
Moderator Jim Lehrer seemed to lose control often and let each candidate continue talking. I don't necessarily think that was a bad thing. I think this was the first debate where the moderator did minimal talking and the candidates were given ample time to expand the discussion.
The next debate is Thursday, October 11, 2012 and will be between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.
go on youtube and look up obama phone ok so do it and leave a comment
The Obama lady reminds me of an argument I heard years ago about requiring people to take an IQ test in order to vote. The camera guy asks her why she doesn't like Romney, "Because he sucks!" Now, there is an intelligent answer. Translation: "He didn't even try to buy my vote with a free cell phone that is not a necessity." I heard somewhere there are 16 million people currently receiving this 'benefit.' If you are unfamiliar with the Obamaphone, anyone on Medicaid or welfare can receive a free cell phone from the government, (meaning tax payers), with no bill. Here is an example of Obama's 'redistribution of the wealth.'
I viewed a disturbing video clip from ABC News of President Obama speaking with Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." Does this trouble anyone? (http://www.youtube.com/embed/eILPwSOtXxI)
Chef:
Actually, "Romney sucks" may be too concise an answer for you, but that pretty much sums it up.
I gave Surfisher a longer answer than "Romney sucks," but that was the gist of what I said, anyway.
As for the old clip of President Obama in Russia, what you don't realize is that he wasn't talking to "Prime Minister" Medvedev. He was talking to "President" Medvedev, who was a lame duck, with Putin coming back to the presidency. Clearly, Obama put off Medvedev, since Medvedev didn't have any power, anyway. The net effect was just to put off ANY negotiation for a year.
If he had negotiated with Medvedev, he would have had to start over AT THAT POINT with Putin, and Putin would have BEGUN negotiation at that point. It was a very smart move.
That's beside the point. The exchange merely illustrate Obama's trend of saying one thing and doing another.
Chef:
Dude. Do you want to retract that, before we get into the mile-long list of flip-flops Willard has engaged in? Seriously.
The Russian example was a matter of putting off Medvedev, because he was a lame duck. If Obama had agreed to something, you might have a point, but he didn't. He just said, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, we can talk about what you want next year. It was a simple, direct put-off, and deftly handled, I think.
beararm dont our gunz
President Obama should win because he was great before and he has a plan for health care
Yep, he has a plan for health care that will require working class folks like myself to pay for healthcare for the unemployed and the under employed. This is exactly why he should not win. Why should I or any other working class citizen have to pay for health care for the people who only want things given to them instead of working for the things in life, like they should.
Is anyone else aware there is a new tax starting in January which is part of Obamacare. There will be a 3.8% tax on the sale of homes over $250,000. You can check it out on snopes.com. I was talking to a realator who was unaware of this new law, he said incredulously, "What do houses have to do with health care?" "My point exactly." That's his plan.
I agree that healthcare needs to be changed in a big way, but Obama's method is not the way. At least we have the best care in the world. Countries that have moved to socialized healthcare, the ones who can afford it, come to out country for care.
Chef:
Nice try. I DID go to Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp
They say your claim is absolutely FALSE. There is NO tax on real estate.
That's funny. I went to the link you provided and here is what it says, I'll cut and paste it for you: "Mixture of true and false information: False: Healthcare legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales. True: Healthcare legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gain threshold." Further down it states the threshold is $250,000. So, if you sell your home for more than $250,000, 3.8% goes to Obamacare.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp (same link)
Chef:
Nice "cut and paste."
Unfortunately, I DID read the article, and let me undo your disinformation.
You now agree that your main point was a lie: there IS no "tax on real estate."
The "true" part of the statement was VERY generous to you. The tax is on CAPITAL GAINS.
If this is you PRIMARY RESIDENCE, there's no tax at all.
AND–the only time it counts is when your **PROFIT** on the house is $250,000. Now then, you may want us to believe that Obama has restarted the housing bubble, making us all rich. I don't think so.
THEREFORE, it is VERY unlikely that you're going to get a $250,000 **profit** at all. BUT in case you find a sucker to give you more than you paid, then the house would probably have to be worth at LEST TWO MILLION BUCKS.
But I still don't think you're going to find someone to give you a QUARTER-MILLION-DOLLAR **profit** on a house–so the whole premise of your tax is ridiculous.
Goethe Behr,
I don't understand how you interpret "Mixture of true and false" to mean "Absolutely false." The tax does exist after all, and even though it won't effect all us little people, doesn't make it less true. However, you are correct in that I was completely misinterpreting 'capital gains,' as it has been a while since econ class, and for that I apologize to all. This is an example of 'tax the rich mentality.'
When I reexamined the law, I, like you, was thinking this law doesn't make sense. Then I saw the other example. No need for a sucker, it's called inflation. If you bought a home in 2004 for $300,000, and sold it 12 years later for $600,000, that would be a capital gain of $300,000. The principal home clause applies if you sell your principal residence, and then you may exclude $500,000 from the taxable portion.
So, I guess we were both incorrect on some points. Hope this clears things up.
Chef:
Because the first line was "mixture of true and false," but it IMMEDIATELY pointed out that YOUR assertion was 100% false, but the "true" part was that there's a tax on capital gains.
As for your fantasy that "inflation" will boost your home's value and cause a huge capital gain, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
BESIDES, if you sell your house and buy another, it doesn't matter, since you primary residence is NOT taxed as capital gains, up to a half million. But it is the PROFIT that is taxed, and if you make a half-million PROFIT on the sale of any home, you know what? I think you SHOULD be taxed on it.
Goethe Behr, It wouldn't let me reply to the last entry for some reason.
All that is beside the point. The point is there is laws in the healthcare bill no one knows about yet. There is stuff in there which the congress men and woman who voted for it are ignorant of, illustrated by the incredulous statement of former Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi: "We have to pass it, so we can find out what's in it."
Chef:
Your reply is a "mixture of true and false."
TRUE–it is true that you never know the repercussions of ANY law until it is in effect.
FALSE–you fell for the baseless propaganda that home sales as low as $250k would have to pay the tax. As noted, ONLY PROFITS from capital gains would pay the 3% tax, and by "profit," it's the amount made in a transaction AFTER costs–so a house would have to be several million dollars to see a $250k profit–and even that is a fantasy in this market. And more importantly, in this case, if it's a primary residence, it's exempt, anyway.
While we cannot know repercussions of ANY law, it is just DISHONEST to claim a result that is patently untrue.
i think rommny should win because i belive that his tax pan will actually work
Doug:
Yeah.
It'll work, all right.
To "redistribute" more wealth to the rich, that is.
The rich, are the people who help out our economy the most, the more money they have the more things they buy, the more people it takes to create those things, therefore creating more jobs, and helping our economy. So why should they tax more on the rich? They deserve their money they earn and it helps everything out.
Madeline:
That is TOTAL malarkey. When rich people get more money, they do NOT go out and buy a car. Their money goes into paths such as highly leveraged derivatives–which don't help the economy, they hurt it.
You need to understand Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People seek what they NEED before what they want, and that means if people of LOWER income levels get money, they will run out immediately and buy things they have put off–even food, in some cases.
Actually, you are offering the "Demand Side" argument, that if consumers have money, they will spend it. That's opposite of the "Supply Side" argument that you're trying to make, which says that rich people are SOMEHOW "job creators." It's just not true. The goal and purpose of every company is to produce as much as possible with as few people as possible–that is, eliminate jobs.
Actually, the argument is not about taxing the rich "more." It's just eliminating the tax kickbacks that they keep getting, which is driving up the deficit, without helping anyone, except the tiny few.
I like the way you put your argument. It is well thought out. However, I think Madeline still has a good point if you look at it another way. They do spend more money, they have multiple houses, and they probably don't clean, cook, and do the lawn care by themselves, they hire others to do all that. They go on more vacations, and they eat out more, spending money, putting more money into the economy. You say they don't create jobs, but just looking at the top 1% income earners (because those are the stats I have) 81% are entrepreneurs, that means business owners, meaning they directly create jobs.
How do hedge funds hurt the economy? I'm not implying one way or the other, I would just like your opinion.
I think Mitt Romney should win because Obama whats to take coal mining away n income tax away
I guess u can say that Obama and mitt did a good job but I think that Obama should get another chance . he did not do good for u the last couple of years but he said that he will try his hardest to make this 4 years easy Obama is a good president I least that is what I say and always will
Mitt Romney should win because Obama is a freak anticolonizationist. He is a crazy lunatic who blames everything he has done on others. He's the one that wanted the job. Also the only reason Obama was voted for was because he was black and held up to lower standards than all the other white candidates.
Math:
Yeah, what were we THINKING to be against colonialism in World War II?? And that Revolutionary War nonsense–how distasteful! We were COLONIES and we should have REMAINED colonies.
And, alao, you're right, what were we ever thinking when we got rid of Slavery! Imagine what our productivity would be if we paid NOTHING for labor (except for whatever chitterlings we didn't want, anyway).
LONG LIVE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE KING!!
"Obama's Deception"
also owe my parents $17,000.00
I think mitt romney shouldve won cause he's a buisness man and america is a buisness
ohh well obama won and for the person that said people were only voting for obama because hes black, your simply wrong he is going to do good for our country unlike romney going to run us to the ground. romney doesnt know how to run masechusets, why would he try be president….. ?
honestly it doesnt even matter hes most likely going to run for president again so for now obama stands tall !