News USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[collinsmark]

'Guess I'll start the thread for this one. (I didn't notice an existing thread for this yet.)

(Using Greg Bernhardt's 1st debate post as a template):

Use this thread for commentary on the 2nd Presidential Debate (United States). It starts at 9PM EDT Oct 16th. Please keep debate of issues to a minimum and focus on observations relevant to the debate.

Have a nice day :)​

I'll be watching it streaming. I'm guessing that it will be from here http://abcnews.go.com/live or can at least be found from there when the time comes.

 

[russ_watters]

There has been some interesting discussion of the moderator's [intended] conduct:

All is fair in a presidential debate, especially for the moderator.
Candy Crowley, CNN’s chief political correspondent and tonight’s town hall debate moderator, has made it known that she will dispense with the rules about asking her own questions and interject whenever she sees fit.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/candy-crowley-to-bend-rules-at-presidential-debate/

Must say I agree with her. If the moderator can't challenge the debaters to stay on point, you may as well just hire a trained monkey with a stopwatch to do the job.

 

[rootX]

Outsider comments:
Romney is working hard to politicize the Libya issue. And, Hilary's statement today added a new twist to the whole issue. It will be interesting if Romney or audiences brings this up during the debate.

Romney doesn't have any strong and clear foreign policies so only place where he hopes to beat Obama in foreign issues is Libya. As for Iran, both Romney and Ryan just don't have enough facts.

 

[Evo]

There has been some interesting discussion of the moderator's [intended] conduct: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/candy-crowley-to-bend-rules-at-presidential-debate/

Must say I agree with her. If the moderator can't challenge the debaters to stay on point, you may as well just hire a trained monkey with a stopwatch to do the job.

I thought the problem both Romney and Obama campaigns have is that this is a "town meeting" where the questions come from the "undecided" voters in the audience and not from the moderator. So it really depends on what she does, asking for clarification is fine, it actually should be done, asking a different question is not.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought the problem both Romney and Obama campaigns have is that this is a "town meeting" where the questions come from the "undecided" voters in the audience and not from the moderator. So it really depends on what she does, asking for clarification is fine, it actually should be done, asking a different question is not.

The way she describes it, it is about asking for clarification, ie if they don't answer the question. Certainly bias can always come into play, which is probably the reason for the rule.

 

[collinsmark]

I can hardly wait.

I'm going to watch the debate tonight in my office, streaming online. These are the snacks I'm preparing (I have access to a microwave):

• 1 tuna salad on wheat sandwich.
• 1 ramen noodle soup serving.
• 1 small, unopened bag of barbecue potato chips (optional).
• 1 additional ramen noodle soup serving, "just 'cause it's come to that."
• 1 microwavable, presidential burrito.

And, in the spirit of tradition, I have managed to scrounge up the following soft, non-destructive projectiles. They are sitting at arm's reach, ready to hurl at the screen whenever necessary:

• Balled up socks
• Miniature, foam football* (American football style--similar in shape to a rugby football if you're not familiar)
  [*]Beer cozy*
  [*]Whiteboard eraser
  [*]Two sets of ramen noodle soup packaging
  [*]Fluffy, cat toy*
  [*]Baseball cap
  [*]Small, unopened bag of barbecue potato chips (optional)
  

*(? What in the world are these objects doing in my office?)

 

[Evo]

I have a spicy chimichanga and potato chips.

Beverage: Fresca and vodka

Oh, things to throw, good idea! I have socks.

 

[turbo]

I need bricks!

 

[renz]

I wish I am at home right now watching the debate, but I'm still working.
Guess I have to watch it later. Hopefully there will be a video of the whole debate later tonight so I can watch it when I get home.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think the Libya issue was tough for Obama. Romney capitalized.

 

[turbo]

Still in progress, Greg.

 

[Evo]

I missed the Libya question, so far Romney's been on the defensive, Obama owns this debate. Romney didn't even answer the first few questions. On the second question, Romney's voice was actually cracking from nerves, although he did later regain his composure, he continues to talk over the moderator and disregard new questions to harp on the previous ones. He comes across as flustered.

Ack, now Obama tried Romney's tactic. I don't like it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Still in progress, Greg.

That was fun. Lots of drama there. Obama called it offensive that Romney accused him of playing politics, but he accused Romney first.

 

[rootX]

They both seem to be stumbling over guns topic

 

[Jack21222]

This was more entertaining to watch than the first. Good to see Obama was awake for this one.

 

[Evo]

Amazing that this close to the election Romney didn't have an answer for the first question. Obama clearly laid out a 5 step plan.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Amazing that this close to the election Romney didn't have an answer for the first question. Obama clearly laid out a 5 step plan.

What was the first question?

 

[Mentalist]

Wow. That Libya question was tense, the way Obama stared down Romney like he was staring at a child doing something horribly wrong.

I dunno, I don't like Romney's policies but I do like his strength and composure. Although he did deflect his tax stance which was an issue with me. Did anyone else catch that?

 

[russ_watters]

What was the first question?

Blog here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/16/obama-romney-debate-town-hall-hofstra/1637443/

 

[WannabeNewton]

Moderator: "So what do you have to say about this issue Gov. Romney"?
Romney: "I will ignore your question and talking about something completely irrelevant!"

 

[Evo]

What was the first question?

The first question was from the college student asking about job prospects.

Transcript here

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484.html?hp=t1_b1

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I'm going to be president. I'm going to make sure you get a job. Thanks Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.

 

[Mentalist]

I sort of felt Romney had to knock back the president's comment and he obviously destroyed Obama on the 4 year's point, although I don't agree with him. That was one point I immediately gave to Romney.

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.

Clean cole? What is this? These two candidates obviously vying for that energy company money, "oh no, no, trust me, I am good for the energy companies".

The pipeline? What is this nonsense?!

Obama in my opinion won this debate, but these two candidates did some *** kissing to the NRA (Obama, who cares? The NRA has not donated one cent to your campaign, and those who have guns more than likely aren't voting for you. So, why do you keep kissing their ***?). Romney keeping to that moderate look with just a month away, lol.

Like I can be convinced he cares for the 100%. "I care for the 100% because I believe in God"?

 

[Evo]

Wow, local news poll here, 99% said Obama won and we're a red state!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Wow, local news poll here, 99% said Obama won and we're a red state!

How many people have voted?

 

[Vorde]

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

It's a tough question to answer, my family is a family where hunting is a really important thing and so I sympathize with gun-lovers.

I think Obama got it spot on when he said that the more important issue is to nail down the causes of the horrible gang violence and gun-related murders. Obama could have won that question had he pushed through (or tried to push through) legislation explicitly in support of that point. Because he didn't, and Romney pointed that out, I'd say that question was a tie.

Edit: Just to clarify, I do support restrictions on all serious guns other than hunting in controlled arenas, but I didn't have a serious expectation that Obama would lean too far to that side.

 

[Mentalist]

I would wait until tomorrow to get a much better estimation of which candidate won. It also depends on who they are speaking with, for instance, they may be polling democrats more than republicans, etc...

 

[rootX]

I only watched half or less of the debate but I think I see Romney views on economy more clearly now. He want to turn the US into a restriction free country like HK or Singapore to attract investment into the US. This puts the US economy in positive trend and helps lower the deficit, unemployment rate and other things. What's interesting that I never heard Romney presenting the connection between making the US economy more free and reducing deficits.

 

[Mentalist]

It's a tough question to answer, my family is a family where hunting is a really important thing and so I sympathize with gun-lovers.

I think Obama got it spot on when he said that the more important issue is to nail down the causes of the horrible gang violence and gun-related murders. Obama could have won that question had he pushed through (or tried to push through) legislation explicitly in support of that point. Because he didn't, and Romney pointed that out, I'd say that question was a tie.

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns. But what is more is that dealing with the gangs by locking them up, one by one, won't solve the problem. I think they expect to go to prison/jail for a selected amount of time and return to their usual hooliganism.

Hitting them where it hurts, i.e. what generates money, i.e. drugs is what would really do damage.

They both failed that question because education won't help with anything if there is an obvious drug market controlled by gang-members that causes such violence to take place.

 

[russ_watters]

What's interesting that I never heard Romney presenting the connection between making the US economy more free and reducing deficits.

That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.

 

[Vorde]

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns. But what is more is that dealing with the gangs by locking them up, one by one, won't solve the problem. I think they expect to go to prison/jail for a selected amount of time and return to their usual hooliganism.

Hitting them where it hurts, i.e. what generates money, i.e. drugs is what would really do damage.

They both failed that question because education won't help with anything if there is an obvious drug market controlled by gang-members that causes such violence to take place.

I don't think that's true, and I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I strongly believe the people who are already in gangs and are already in the drug business won't ever leave it.

The point is to dissuade the teens my age and younger from ever entering that business. And that means having better schools and more opportunities for them as they grow up. I think this method vs the anti-drugs anti-weapons method (as the primary point, that is) is a comparison between attacking the problem as it occurs and trying to get rid of the origin of the problem.

I see Romney stressing very hard to make it seem like he's going to fix the problem for tomorrow, and Obama stressing that he wants to fix the problems for the next generation (highlighted in Obama implicitly saying that lowering gas prices is less important than building our energy future and Romney saying that one of his biggest concerns is lowering gas prices today)

I'm 5 months too young to vote in this election, but Obama would have my vote because it seems to me he's planning for the future.

 

[Evo]

How many people have voted?

I don't know the number, but it was a live poll of people watching the debate that were provided clickers.

 

[rootX]

That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.

Yes something I also support to some extent but I haven't heard that argument from Romney yet. He talked about bringing more economic freedom but completely ignored the question how he will lower deficits. He has been challenged on this for so many times during last and this debate but I don't recall he explained his conservative economic position. I believe he never brought the connection between "more economic freedom" and "lower deficits".

 

[Mentalist]

We all should know how this plan of Romney's is going to work. The middle class will have to pay for it, but that statement is obviously unsupported so I am just using my intuition here.
Romney is not going to answer that question because he will look incompetent if he changes it with 4/3 weeks away from the election, and if he did tell us, he will put himself in the picture of the business man screwing the little guy once again, and in this climate that would mean utter disaster for him to win the presidency. So, just deflect the question and start talking about the other guy. (Of course, that is my intuition speaking here).

 

[Evo]

Greg split off the debate discussion here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4118671#post4118671

 

[CAC1001]

I agree that Romney completely flubbed the first question. You'd think he'd have had an intelligent way to answer it. He seemed weak at first, but then seemed to grow stronger as the debate went on. Obama was much stronger this time then last time.

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

Gangs are a serious cause of violence.

Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon (there are assault rifles), shotguns are used for hunting, and pretty much any rifle can be used for hunting (rifles that can't be used for hunting are fine for home defense/protection purposes as not everyone hunts).

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

AR-15s make excellent hunting rifles and there are numerous hunting-specific AR-15 models available that have a longer barrel, green camouflage, and fire a 7.62 mm round.

And two of the military's sniper rifles, the U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle and the U.S. Marine Corps M40 sniper rifle are both militarized versions of what is a very popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns.

Most gangs kill with handguns, not assault rifles and shotguns. And assault rifles are already illegal unless registered pre-1986.

 

[collinsmark]

Based purely on debate performance, I don't think Romney every recovered from the Libya discussion. A little before that, I might have given a slight lead to Romney. (I'm not speaking about the actual issues, but rather just the debate performance -- imagine that instead of them discussing real-world jobs, taxes, and foreign policy, they were discussing which lollipops taste best and how to produce tastier lollipops).

Romney was doing a crafty job at prodding Obama, asking pointed, direct, leading, questions at him, in several different occasions. I speculate he was attempting to fluster Obama by getting him to lose composure. A couple of times I almost thought Obama might just stand up and slap him upside the head, but he succeeded in keeping is cool.

However, Romney's wording of his answers was smooth, whereas sometimes Obama's answers were comparatively disjointed (that's why I would have given Romney a slight lead up until then). That is until Romney decided to suddenly, and unexpectedly change the topic from criminal immigrant deportation to Chinese investments. Really? Chinese investments out of the blue from deporting criminals? Where the heck did that come from?

Right after that, the floor fell out from under Romney's feet.

Referring to Secretary of State taking full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi:

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief.

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to...

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I...

CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- [Obama] did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
​

[Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/2012-presidential-debate-full-transcript-oct-16/story?id=17493848#.UH4lSoa0LTp]

After that point, Romney reminded me of Porky Pig in a Looney Tunes cartoon, "Ba-daba-da-ba-bada." Romney effectively, right there, made it look all the more like he was/is trying to politicize the deaths of the four Americans.

Obama won this debate.

 

[russ_watters]

Romney certainly flubbed the Libya thing. There were major points to be scored there, but he had to be ready for Obama's citing of his first speech. Romney could have dismissed the first speech and focused on later comments (specifically, by UN ambassador Rice) or said terror=/terrorism and prodded Obama to use the word right then and there. At the same time, the moderator didn't help by tripping over her tongue about what Romney got right. Big opportunity missed.

 

[mathwonk]

romney's fundamental problem is that most people do not agree with nor benefit from his philosophy, which favors the very wealthy, and this was made clear tonight. he is going down the tubes. he has an especially hard time defending why he himself pays only 14% income tax last year (what did you pay?) and he would have paid only 10% had he not been running for president, and still may do so if he loses. would you enjoy subsidizing his gifts to the mormon church?

 

[CAC1001]

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief.

Except that is precisely what he did. He sent out his own Ambassador onto five different Sunday talk shows to mislead that it was a random attack as opposed to an organized terrorism attack.

 

[CAC1001]

romney's fundamental problem is that most people do not agree with nor benefit from his philosophy, which favors the very wealthy, and this was made clear tonight. he is going down the tubes. he has an especially hard time defending why he himself pays only 14% income tax last year (what did you pay?) and he would have paid only 10% had he not been running for president, and still may do so if he loses. would you enjoy subsidizing his gifts to the mormon church?

Romney's philosophy doesn't benefit the very wealthy. His argument for lowering taxes further and that he can do so in a revenue-neutral manner by closing up loopholes is rather sketchy, but his basic arguments for limited government, low taxes, light regulation, free economy, etc...benefit everyone. He pays most of his taxes at the capital gains rate, which is lower because it is on investment income that itself is oftentimes already taxed at the corporate level (although if said business ends up paying zero tax as GE did then it would be a lower tax).

 

[Evo]

Except that is precisely what he did. He sent out his own Ambassador onto five different Sunday talk shows to mislead that it was a random attack as opposed to an organized terrorism attack.

No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.

Here is what the WH sent to media on 9-12, the day after the Libya attack.

U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-10/world/world_libya-attack-statements_1_libya-attack-actionable-intelligence-benghazi/3

 

[MacLaddy]

This is probably not very important, but I found it interesting that towards the end of the debate Romney called himself a "Pastor," and that he had a "Congregation."

I believe the correct terms are a "Bishop," and a "Ward."

Like I said- probably unimportant. I am curious why he would change these titles though. Seems a bit like pandering. I wonder if anything will come from it.

 

[russ_watters]

No, that's misinformation being spread by biased media.

Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.

Here is what the WH sent to media on 9-12...

1. Prove that "US sources" are from the White House. The fact that the statement contradicts direct administration statements implies to me that those sources were not from the White House or authorized by the White House. I can't prove that and don't assert it as fact, but you are claiming your speculation as fact.
2. How does the use of leaks (if in fact this was purposely leaked by the White House, as you are implying) saying the right thing make it OK to have an actual representative of the Obama administration openly mislead us?

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

That was Sept 25, two weeks after the attack. In any case, one of the other things he was criticized for was in answering a direct question about "terrorism", he didn't use the word "terrorism".

 

[Angry Citizen]

Libya is a valid point against Obama. Romney completely blew it. Romney's best moment came near the beginning when he started badgering the President asking him for numbers and specifics. That was his high point of the debate. Obama proceeded to gut him on everything else. Any time I'd think Romney was making a solid point, Obama came and countered it, driving a stake through Romney's argument. Libya particularly was devastating, and I think Obama and the moderator essentially annihilated any argument Romney could ever make about the subject, particularly with Obama's death stare at Romney.

This debate was Obama's, plain and simple. Not quite the margin of defeat that Romney inflicted on Obama in the first debate, but certainly one of the strongest beatdowns of a candidate in modern debate history.

 

[Evo]

Nonsense, Evo. Rice did make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and talk about it being a "spontaneous" response to the protest. It actually happened. It is fact.

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

 

[Evo]

First polls coming in show Obama winner of debate.

Obama Won Presidential Debate, 46 Percent Say in CNN Poll

President Barack Obama won last night’s presidential debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a CNN/ORC International poll of 457 registered voters who watched the nationally televised event.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed said Obama fared better in the debate, compared with 39 percent for Romney, according to results aired on CNN after the event. The poll found 73 percent said Obama’s performance exceeded expectations, compared with 37 percent who said Romney did better than expected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/obama-won-presidential-debate-46-percent-say-in-cnn-poll.html

Poll: Obama edges Romney in second presidential debate
October 16, 2012 8:09 PM

In a CBS News Instant Poll of uncommitted voters, 37 percent say President Obama won the second presidential debate, 30 percent say Romney won, and 33 percent called it a tie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133279n

 

[CAC1001]

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

But here is what Obama said:

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief."

Ambassador Rice went the rounds on five shows saying that it was not a planned attack. So either she didn't know what she was talking about or was misleading the public.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm saying it's nonsense that Obama sent Rice to give information that contradicted what he said. Unless you have a valid source saying Obama sent her out to contradict him.

Evo, you didn't quote Obama. At best, that is stating speculation as fact.

The second sententence is flipping: YOU are the one claiming a contradiction. You are the one saying he leaked statements that contradict what his representative made media rounds to say. I am saying there is no evidence of such a intra-admin contradiction and you need to support your claim. My perception is that administration sources are typically labeled as such. That this one wasn't implies to me that it wasn't.

Are you saying you think Rice did that on her own? If so, she really screwed Obama. Don't you think he would want to set the record straight like when he said the Egyptian embassy statements were not approved?

 

[Jack21222]

By the way, did you guys notice when Mitt Romney said he'd save middle class Americans money by removing the tax on the interest from your savings?

I don't know about you guys, but I made 3 dollars in interest last year. (Note, he's not talking about retirement accounts, those are already not taxed. He's talking about savings). Anyway, the tax on my 3 dollars of interest amounts to about 50 cents.

The interest rates on savings accounts is in the 0.25% range, and it's hard to find a CD that pays more than 2%. If you have so much in savings that you pay a noticeable amount of tax on the interest, you have NOT been "crushed" by the economy and Obama, as Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night.

For hard numbers, let me give you an example. I'd say $100 in tax savings would be a noticeable amount. It's a fairly small amount as far as tax credits or deductions go, but it's noticeable. If you paid $100 in tax on your savings interest, that means you earned $667 in income from savings.

If you had all of your savings in a CD, the highest-yielding CD I can find through a google search (https://www.google.com/advisor/uscd?bsp=1&s=1&kw=cd%20rates&group=GenericRadio&gclid=CM695sa2iLMCFQHNOgodh0cAKg&term=0:5001&q=cd+rates ) is 1.95%.

This means, to earn your $667 with that CD, you would have needed to invest over $34,000 in that CD. If, instead, it was a savings account with 0.25% interest, you'd need to have a quarter-million invested.

Now, I know a lot of middle-class people, and not one of them has 34,000 invested. They have mortgages to pay off, car loans, student loans, etc. Every one of these sources of debt carry higher interest rates than you can make from a CD. Therefore, they'd be better of taking any extra money and using it to pay down debts, which is exactly what they do.

It's common advice that you should keep 3 to 6 months living expenses as an emergency fund in savings. That comes out to be around $10,000 dollars. A person with 10k in savings is not going to be paying a noticeable amount of tax on their savings.

Now, Mitt Romney and his friends all make plenty of money on their savings. So, I guess he assumes that everybody is in the same position. It's just like when he said that if you can't afford college "get your parents to pay for it."

Completely out of touch with what it means to be middle class.

 

[Evo]

Evo, you didn't quote Obama.

The first was a WH press release, the second was from Obama.

The second sententence is flipping: YOU are the one claiming a contradiction. You are the one saying he leaked statements that contradict what his representative made media rounds to say.

No, I'm saying if someone on his staff made comments that appeared to contradict what the Presdient said, then post them. Stop twisiting my words.

I am saying there is no evidence of such a intra-admin contradiction and you need to support your claim. My perception is that administration sources are typically labeled as such. That this one wasn't implies to me that it wasn't.

No, You are the one claiming Rice went around giving interviews that you claim contradict what the President said, so you need to provide those interviews. Please post all of the interviews, I haven't seen them so do not know what she was asked or said. There were riots popping up around embassies for a couple of weeks after Cairo & Libya. The only interview I saw, she was asked to comment on the movie and it's effects, creating protestors. Rice did not bring it up as a cause for the Libya attack.