google reveals PBS as "uber-liberal".

Mitt won in tonality and controlling the message, but ultimately he's a loser because he was lying through his teeth. It's like gloating that the Russians won the Gold in basketball in 1972.

If you're good with teh google you might be able to find a video of me moderating this debate tonight. I wasn't as polished as you might expect. I also will be on local Shreveport news tonight maybe. Unless I get bumped for a gunfight or something.

I didn't watch any of the debate, but I was wondering - does the moderator have any actual power, or is he supposed to rely on force of personality to enforce time limits and so forth? Can he, for instance, cut off a candidate's microphone if he goes too long?

They should give the mods super soakers for when candiates go over the time limit.

I was armed.

JH's continued hope/belief in Romney reminds me of when I wanted Vince Young to start last year.

td11 wrote:

Cutting tax rates and keeping share of taxes paid by different groups constant is not mutually exclusive, especially through reduction of exemptions. You're not the only one that equates the two though.

cutting taxes also doesnt really do anything for the economy. if it did, then companies would currently be hiring people by the millions since they have the most cash on hand ever at the moment.

And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

JFLNYC wrote:And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

Did the last four years happen?

Where am I?

TenuredVulture wrote:I wonder if there were a way Obama could talk about how the market is hitting 5 year highs. In the context of "are you better off" type discussion, I am way better off if I get to include my 401k balance. (I'm better off in other ways as well, but not so much.

The middle class sold their stocks at the bottom and moved to cash now earning .02%. It's all the damn rich that have benefited from the rise.

oh jeez

pacino wrote:cutting taxes also doesnt really do anything for the economy. if it did, then companies would currently be hiring people by the millions since they have the most cash on hand ever at the moment.

A lot of this cash was earned overseas, and since we make them pay taxes again to bring it back, they just sit on it. Brilliant, really, all around. They uphold their fiduciary duty, and Congress gets to grandstand about evil corporations. And we all suffer. If only the corporate tax code was different...

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

Did the last four years happen?

Where am I?

I don't get your point. This is not a defense of Obama, just stating the reality of what will likely happen if Romney gets elected. It's easy to cut taxes, but in the end nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to do the real cost-cutting necessary to offset the lost revenue. Everybody wants to go to the party, but nobody wants to stay and clean up.

JFLNYC wrote:And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

I think its unlikely that Dems pass a 20% tax cut because Romney asks them to, but not the tax raise on the rich by reducing exemptions.

I mean, really, if Romney were truly serious about cutting spending would he be proposing the $2 trillion increase in the defense budget? Would he be proposing to give back the hard-won $716 billion Obama clawed back from the health care industry? Let's face it, both parties take care of their own and Romney is no exception. If elected he'll take care of his defense contractor and health insurance pals no matter how much he has to borrow from China.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

Romney is going to win, but dems take over the senate?
Then, Dems pass a 20% tax cut because Romney asks them to, but not the tax raise on the rich by reducing exemptions?
I don't even...

No you don't even. You really don't.

As of today there's not a single Senate race the Republican candidate leads and which is outside the margin of error. The Dems have 8.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:And here's the reality: If Romney is elected, he'll get his tax cut passed, but the Democratic Senate won't agree to eliminating the deductions, so the deficit and debt will soar even higher. IOW, we'll have a repeat of the wonderful W years.

Did the last four years happen?

Where am I?

I don't get your point. This is not a defense of Obama, just stating the reality of what will likely happen if Romney gets elected. It's easy to cut taxes, but in the end nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to do the real cost-cutting necessary to offset the lost revenue. Everybody wants to go to the party, but nobody wants to stay and clean up.

In the past four years we've had taxes cut and haven't seen deductions cut or anything of the like. Democrats controlled all the levers of power and the income tax rates were untouched. Deficits have been sustained at unprecedented levels. Just wondering what makes what Romney would do (if in fact taxes were cut without accompanying deduction limitations) a repeat of the wonderful W years?