News USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[Alfi]

What is arrogant about it? The Canadian side already has approval from Harper.

The Prime Minister said the fact that there are still questions about a decision that should be a “complete no-brainer” is encouraging Canada to pursue other export markets for oil and gas.

It’s “all the more reason why Canada should look at trade diversification and particularly diversification of energy exports,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/keystone-pipeline-approval-complete-no-brainer-harper-says/article2174907/

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but the motivation of the US Administration (&media?) for portraying, or believing, the Benghazi attack to be the 'senseless violence' of mob enraged by a video is not clear to me. Thoughts?

Acknowledging an Al Qaeda planned attack hurts the administration how? Takes away the public line that AQ is "on the run". Is that it?

Yes. Minus Benghazi, Obama's record on the War on Terror is stellar. It is the brightest spot of his Presidency, IMO. But with Benghazi, we have al Qaeda making its highest profile attack on US interests since 9/11, killing the highest ranking American government official in a very, very long time, making his dismemberment of al Qaeda not quite so complete.

Ok, but what different preemptive action would a different administration (McCain, Romney) have taken? Would they have not given US support to the Libyan civil war, leaving Qaddafi in charge?

If anything they would have likely provided more support for the war, but that's really not relevant to the aftermath unless it included ground troops.

Regarding the attack itself, anything is highly speculative due to remaining unanswered questions:
1. Why were so many angry requests for additional protection rebuffed? Was there a political motive to that?

2. Why, if you're not going to protect the ambassador adequately do you allow him to risk his life in a terrorist hornet's nest?

3. Did they know that Benghazi was a terrorist hornet's nest? The Libyans apparently did.

If the political problem was an accusation of fumbling embassy security, then an attack in force with heavy weapons weakens that argument, making it more likely that even a reinforced embassy would still have been overrun.

4. The embassy is in Tripoli. Benghazi was a consulate, which is just a French name for an office. What was its purpose? Was it accidentally revealed this week in the hearings that it was a CIA base? How did the terrorists know the ambassador would be there, since he wasn't based there?

5. Speaking of security, following the attack, the Obama administration requested permission to to reinforce several embassies with additional Marines. Requested? Really? (Request denied.)

6. Speaking of Marines, embassy/ambassador protection is one of the primary duties of the Marine Corps. The embassy in Tripoli is protected by Marines. Why was the ambassador not protected by Marines when he went to visit a hostile area?

To your point, though, perhaps a couple of squads of Marines would not have been able to protect the ambassador and we'd have a dozen dead Americans instead of three. I suspect public opinion would look at that like a scoreboard and consider it worse, but I would look at it as a better decision. But then, I was in the military.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, Susan Rice was obviously misinformed, which is why her statements contradict those of Obama. Clinton said in an interview that they all had access to the same information, and the reporter asked why Susan had a different story, Clinton said "you'll have to ask her". It's in the video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57533061/clinton-on-benghazi-we-all-had-the-same-intel

Thank You!

 

[russ_watters]

Enough of Rice!
Sick of this round and round singular topic.

Good idea! We really should be getting back to ripping Romney in another hundred posts for his gaffes rather than talking about actual issues! And we should never, ever try to correct official misinformation!

 

[Evo]

Yes. Minus Benghazi, Obama's record on the War on terror is stellar. It is the brightest spot of his Presidency, IMO. But with Benghazi, we have al Qaeda making its highest profile attack on US interests since 9/11, killing the highest ranking American government official in a very, very long time, making his dismemberment of al Qaeda not quite so complete.
If anything they would have likely provided more support for the war, but that's really not relevant to the aftermath unless it included ground troops.

Regarding the attack itself, anything is highly speculative due to remaining unanswered questions:
1. Why were so many angry requests for additional protection rebuffed? Was there a political motive to that?

2. Why, if you're not going to protect the ambassador adequately do you allow him to risk his life in a terrorist hornet's nest?

3. Did they know that Benghazi was a terrorist hornet's nest? The Libyans apparently did.
4. The embassy is in Tripoli. Benghazi was a consulate, which is just a French name for an office. What was its purpose? Was it accidentally revealed this week in the hearings that it was a CIA base? How did the terrorists know the ambassador would be there, since he wasn't based there?

5. Speaking of security, following the attack, the Obama administration requested permission to to reinforce several embassies with additional Marines. Requested? Really? (Request denied.)

6. Speaking of Marines, embassy/ambassador protection is one of the primary duties of the Marine Corps. The embassy in Tripoli is protected by Marines. Why was the ambassador not protected by Marines when he went to visit a hostile area?

To your point, though, perhaps a couple of squads of Marines would not have been able to protect the ambassador and we'd have a dozen dead Americans instead of three. I suspect public opinion would look at that like a scoreboard and consider it worse, but I would look at it as a better decision. But then, I was in the military.

Russ, the amount of protection apparently can be controlled by the host country under the Vienna Convention. I even used Fox News just for you.

Sudan has rejected an offer by the United States to send Marines to increase security at the U.S. embassy in Khartoum, amid protesters and police clashing.

The announcement Saturday follows the United States saying it was sending Marines to Sudan to bolster security at the embassy, where Sudanese police reportedly fired on protestors trying to scale the compound walls.

“Sudan is able to protect the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and the state is committed to protecting its guests in the diplomatic corps,'' Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti told the state news agency SUNA, which Reuters reported Saturday.

As a result, the deployment has been delayed and possibly curtailed, said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to disclose details on the troop movement.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Sudan's government "has recommitted itself both publicly and privately to continue to protect our mission," as obligated under the Vienna Convention.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...send-marines-to-secure-embassy/#ixzz29hv3Q2fz

 

[Mentalist]

Good idea! We really should be getting back to ripping Romney in another hundred posts for his gaffes rather than talking about actual issues! And we should never, ever try to correct official misinformation!

"...and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem..."

Lol. But seriously, this guy wants to decrease taxes by 20% for everyone, but we all know the middle class or poor will never benefit from such tax deductions. In fact, the middle class would benefit from tax increases believe it or not. Why the tax cuts then? Helps Romney and his tribe, that's why. They stand to benefit more than everyone else.

The pell grants? I posted above his quote that he believes students who need pell grants as having an, "entitlement mentality", and would like to cut them. He doesn't deliver for the students on pell grants either.

He would like to have more for profit schools. Bad idea.

He would like to cut HUD funding for the poor as well. So not only are they getting hit by having to pay more as they won't see an actual "tax reduction" but the essential housing and food stamps they need would also be gutted as well. Not only that, their health care.

 

[Evo]

Thank You!

Good idea! We really should be getting back to ripping Romney in another hundred posts for his gaffes rather than talking about actual issues! And we should never, ever try to correct official misinformation!

Just to set things straight.

This is what was said.

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.

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]

"...and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem..."

Lol. But seriously, this guy wants to decrease taxes by 20% for everyone, but we all know the middle class or poor will never benefit from such tax deductions. In fact, the middle class would benefit from tax increases believe it or not. Why the tax cuts then? Helps Romney and his tribe, that's why. They stand to benefit more than everyone else.

The pell grants? I posted above his quote that he believes students who need pell grants as having an, "entitlement mentality", and would like to cut them. He doesn't deliver for the students on pell grants either.

He would like to have more for profit schools. Bad idea.

He would like to cut HUD funding for the poor as well. So not only are they getting hit by having to pay more as they won't see an actual "tax reduction" but the essential housing and food stamps they need would also be gutted as well. Not only that, their health care.

I have two daughters in college so Romney is the last person we would want in the Oval office.

Same thing for Romney repealing Obama's healthcare plan, that would be devastating to them, especially my oldest.

 

[rootX]

Politicizing the Libya issue even before it occurred was wrong. And, the blaming government for intentionally covering up (spreading misinformation) the incident? This is almost like a conspiracy theory!

 

[Mentalist]

The Libya issue is now a non-issue. Let's get back to the issues and stray away from this Libya nonsense. It is now considered a "terrorist attack" and the culprits are being sought out.

Was it politicized, yes. Politicians do that and Romney is no saint either.

 

[rootX]

The Libya issue is now a non-issue. Let's get back to the issues and stray away from this Libya nonsense. It is now considered a "terrorist attack" and the culprits are being sought out.

Was it politicized, yes. Politicians do that and Romney is no saint.

Politicians should do that but when they don't have any facts?! And then continue beating the issue until, keep on nitpicking the opponents, is bit too excessive. IMO in terms of foreign policy, Romney need to talk about other serious issues than just Libya.

I pointed it out even before the debate that Romney appears to have only Libya issue to talk about (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4118279&postcount=3).

 

[Mentalist]

Romney serious on foreign policy? This guy is the most backwards candidate, literally (his appointees alone just speaks incompetence to me), on foreign policy. He made some good points during the debate about politicizing Libya, but that doesn't speak about what he plans on doing and his appointees as his cabinet that were the cause of a disastrous, failed war in Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

...this guy wants to decrease taxes by 20% for everyone, but we all know the middle class or poor will never benefit from such tax deductions.

That's very badly phrased. I think you meant reductions, not deductions. Romney wants to reduce tax rates and reduce tax deductions. In rough outline, this is an idea that should have universal appeal. The biggest complaint most people I know have about the tax code is that it is too complicated: too many deductions and the perception that the deductions favor the rich.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the amount of protection apparently can be controlled by the host country under the Vienna Convention. I even used Fox News just for you.

If you could quote the relevant portion of the article, I'd appreciate it because all I see is that the host country is obligated to protect our diplomatic missions. I don't see the other side of the coin; that we're obligated to not protect them without permission.

 

[russ_watters]

Politicizing the Libya issue even before it occurred was wrong. And, the blaming government for intentionally covering up (spreading misinformation) the incident?

Are you suggesting we should not blame the government for spreading misinformation?

 

[rootX]

Are you suggesting we should not blame the government for spreading misinformation?

Blame government for spreading misinformation. The officials will be misinformed themselves when they don't have sufficient information. It was well know and pointed by officials that there are still not sufficient details about the incident but you seem to be ignoring that part. But, intentionally spreading misinformation? You have to be bit over speculative to blame government for that in case of Libya.

 

[Mentalist]

That's very badly phrased. I think you meant reductions, not deductions. Romney wants to reduce tax rates and reduce tax deductions. In rough outline, this is an idea that should have universal appeal. The biggest complaint most people I know have about the tax code is that it is too complicated: too many deductions and the perception that the deductions favor the rich.

Nit-pick all you like, I really don't care how poorly written my statements are, the context is still the same. The rich will ultimately benefit more from Romney's tax plan than either the middle class or the poor.

"

Universal appeal"

How? I watch with glee as the rich make more money whilst others suffer.

"

The perception that these deductions favor the rich

"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...n-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf

"He favors eliminating taxes on capital gains and other income earned from investments, ending the estate tax, repealing the alternative minimum tax, and overturning ObamaCare, which includes tax increases on the wealthy. "

This is from the tax policy link that I thought was pretty revealing:

Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000), taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see somewhat smaller increases of about 2.4 percent (an average tax cut of $1,800), while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130) due to the expiration of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2009 and extended at the end of 2010.

The above estimates assume that all available tax expenditures for higher-income households are completely eliminated—tax expenditures that include deductions for charitable contributions, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and exclusions from income of health insurance and other fringe benefits. To the degree any of these were even partially retained for high-income households, the net tax cuts for high-income households and tax increases for low- and middle- income households would be even larger.

Finally, just as we ignore the corporate and business tax rate reductions, we also assume that corporate and business tax expenditures are not available to offset the individual and estate tax cuts.(Pg. 10)

Thus, in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.(Pg. 11)

I was rereading that Tax Policy Center link and became a bit angered, here are some more obvious downers for those not rich:

Because taxpayers above $200,000 as a group have received a net tax cut, revenue neutrality requires that taxpayers below $200,000—about 95 percent of the population—experience a tax increase. If this increased burden is shared equally among all households earning less than $200,000, after-tax income among individuals in this group would decrease by (on average) 1.2 percent (an average tax increase of $500 per household). Without additional details about how specific tax expenditures below this threshold would be curtailed, it is impossible to say which households and which income groups would experience the tax increase. The results shown in Figure 3 are illustrative based on the assumptions that the tax increase would be distributed in proportion to different income groups’ shares of after-tax income.

but you believe I should be happy for these tax cuts? Tax increases, I would be happy with but only if those increases are justified. This is not justified.

 

[russ_watters]

Nit-pick all you like, I really don't care how poorly written my statements are, the context is still the same.

I'm really just trying to clarify: did you use the wrong word there or not? If you meant it as written, it is wrong/nonsensical and I'm trying to make sure I understand it. There's nothing wrong with admitting to a typo!

The rich will ultimately benefit more from Romney's tax plan than either the middle class or the poor.

Of course they would! The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes so any tax cut that brushes past them will help them more than everyone else!

Admittedly, details are thin, but here's what "broadening the base" means to me:

About a month ago, I asked in a poll on PF if everyone who is able should pay at least some income tax, by which I meant if you aren't poor, aren't elderly and aren't a student, you should be paying. And I pointed out that roughly a quarter of eligible taxpayers fall into that category yet do not pay federal income tax. By a 14:2 margin, PF'ers (a more liberal bunch than the general population) agreed that they should be paying at least something. That's a pretty high fraction.

Inheritance tax I could kinda go either way on. Though we tax gifts, I think it is terrible that the inheritance tax makes it impossible to pass-down a family farm, for example.

Capital gains, also either way. I'm mostly in favor of a reduction for normal investments, as long as we can add in ways to keep people from using capital gains as a way to avoid income tax in their money-earning years. That's a pretty small group of people though.

 

[Oltz]

In addition the elimination of capital gains was for earners under $250,000 and the inheritance tax was a reduction in rate and a change in the exemption up to 5 million.

I will look for source for now consider this as far as I know.

 

[russ_watters]

Blame government for spreading misinformation. The officials will be misinformed themselves when they don't have sufficient information. It was well know and pointed by officials that there are still not sufficient details about the incident but you seem to be ignoring that part. But, intentionally spreading misinformation? You have to be bit over speculative to blame government for that in case of Libya.

I don't know if it is intentional and I'm pretty sure I went no further than suggesting it might be. Mainly I want to know why.

The idea that they were misinformed is tough to swallow, since reports were in the media with correct info before Rice made her statements.

I'm cynical when politicians make make errors that are conveniently in their own self-interest. Am I more cynical about Obama's admin because of my bias? Probably. But being so willing to give him a pass that I can't even ask the questions - while slamming Romney for what at worst were lesser errors of the same type - shows more bias.

 

[edward]

I don't know if it is intentional and I'm pretty sure I went no further than suggesting it might be. Mainly I want to know why.

The idea that they were misinformed is tough to swallow, since reports were in the media with correct info before Rice made her statements.

I'm cynical when politicians make make errors that are conveniently in their own self-interest. Am I more cynical about Obama's admin because of my bias? Probably. But being so willing to give him a pass that I can't even ask the questions - while slamming Romney for what at worst were lesser errors of the same type - shows more bias.

I keep stating that this situation goes much deeper than anyone is looking.

There were private guards on duty provided by a British firm.

Abdulaziz Majbiri, a Blue Mountain guard at the compound, told the Daily Telegraph that they were effectively abandoned and incapable of defending themselves on the night of the attack.

"We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool," he said. "I was separated from the others and couldn't get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...onsulate-contract-with-little-experience.html

Most of the CIA black ops were evacuated (no one knows for sure). The French link I posted earlier claims that they were.

So now who did the CIA have left to question when everyone else had been killed? The Libyan guys above!

It is obvious why we ended up with conflicting stories on the exact sequence of events. All Obama could do was wait for the CIA reports to go through Langley and they still came up with conflicting reports, because the CIA information from Libya kept changing.

Here is another article that ends up contradicting its own headline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ort-blamed-militants-for-Benghazi-attack.html

Why except for political exploitation would anyone believe that Obama would lie, or tell someone to lie, about information that General Petraeus was giving him?

 

[JonDE]

As others have asked elsewhere:


Quote by Question
I'd like to know this answer as well. If you're revenue neutral, outside of a simpler 1040, what's the economic incentive? I can see the new tax policy disproportionately benefits some payers with lower deductions, who gain incentive, but revenue neutral means there are losers as well.

Quote by (Prof) John H. Cochrane, October 5, 2012
Thanks for asking! This is the most important point. In economics "how much money you have in your pocket" is really a secondary question to the overall economy (I know it matters to you!)
What matters is, if you (say) work an extra day, how much more money do you get to keep? If you get paid $100 per day, but the government takes half, then you keep $50. If it takes a third, then you keep $66, and are more likely to work that extra day rather than go home and watch the ball game. A revenue-neutral tax reform lowers this marginal rate, but eliminates deductions so you end up paying the same amount overall.
Why not "put more money in your pocket?" reduce the rate and let you keep the deduction? Yes, that would be even better. But the government is broke and needs the money.
Why does putting money in your pocket not really affect the economy overall? Because mostly the government takes your money and gives it to someone else to spend. You spend more, he or she spends less. You like it, but it's not much difference overall.
Margins matter to economics.




http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/dynamic-tax-scoring.html#more

This doesn't make sense, in the current economic situation. I admit that it would be good to give incentive to people to work more if we had a shortage of labor, but that is not the case. We have a shortage of hours that need to be worked, so getting those that have jobs to work more hours, means that there will be less hours to be worked for others. If anything, I see that as increasing unemployment, not decreasing it.

 

[mheslep]

This doesn't make sense, in the current economic situation. I admit that it would be good to give incentive to people to work more if we had a shortage of labor, but that is not the case. We have a shortage of hours that need to be worked, so getting those that have jobs to work more hours, means that there will be less hours to be worked for others. If anything, I see that as increasing unemployment, not decreasing it.

The concept also applies to the business tax rate. The business can earn more by doing more, i.e. hiring more and producing more.

 

[JonDE]

The concept also applies to the business tax rate. The business can earn more by doing more, i.e. hiring more and producing more.

I'm not buying that either. The company I work for keeps a 16 week supply on hand at all times. Discounting our tax rate offers us no incentive to increase production. We carry a 16 week supply because we feel that we need that to cover nearly all scenarios. Carrying further supply hurts our profits, because we would need more storage space for it, we would need to maintain it, and we would have more that we would need to deeply discount when the next years model comes out. The only time we increase production is when demand increases.

 

[Evo]

I'm not buying that either. The company I work for keeps a 16 week supply on hand at all times. Discounting our tax rate offers us no incentive to increase production. We carry a 16 week supply because we feel that we need that to cover nearly all scenarios. Carrying further supply hurts our profits, because we would need more storage space for it, we would need to maintain it, and we would have more that we would need to deeply discount when the next years model comes out. The only time we increase production is when demand increases.

Exactly. Business 101, Inventory and cash flow.

 

[happysauce]

I think it's pretty obvious to vote for Romney, especially if you are a realist.

Suppose Obama was reelected and his agenda was passed, the rich paid more in taxes. Well the top 1% will react by raising prices for the middle class to make up the difference, or they could fire people, or make smaller adjustments to lower the quality. For example, Apple can raise the price of their macs by a little and claim it's "expensive new technology," they could lower wages, or they could make the macs cheaper and look high quality...

You have to understand that the rich don't run their business to expand, create jobs, and make the world a better place, they run the business to get richer so they have more power and influence in politics. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, why would the oil companies be getting annual subsidies when they are making large profits? If we take off the subsidy though, it's going to justify a gas price hike so you really can't win. Rich people do not care at all about the middle class, and if you mess with them, you are going to lose.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Well the top 1% will react by raising prices for the middle class to make up the difference, or they could fire people, or make smaller adjustments to lower the quality. For example, Apple can raise the price of their macs by a little and claim it's "expensive new technology," they could lower wages, or they could make the macs cheaper and look high quality...

You haven't thought this through which is leading to you making absurd statements- businesses ALREADY try and maximize profits. That means Apple already believes that if it charged more for its product, fewer people would buy it and they would lose money. Similarly, if they charge less, Apple believes that in the long term the extra sales would not make up for the decline in marginal revenue.

Apple pays its employees what it believes maximizes profits- if it cuts labor costs, Apple believes lower productivity (lower quality employees, or fewer employees) will lead to more money lost in sales.

SO- what you are saying is that if you raised Tim Cook's personal income tax, he would respond BY MAKING APPLE LESS PROFITABLE. This clearly makes no sense.

 

[Mentalist]

Realist? Even if what you said were true, I don't think that would be considered "realistic" in the sense you are using it.

The mac user base is not as large as the windows user base, and seeing as Microsoft is actually creating better user experiences, and seeing one can get a cheaper, but high quality system (better than any mac), people will more than likely go that route.

If prices are raised that fosters more diversity in a market, especially if people do not want to pay high prices in this current climate. They will more than likely go to a more suitable product in terms of their interests (we have seen this before in terms of clothing and technology).

People will become more realistic and stop spending money on products that are low-end and get products that are more efficient, i.e. whether it is building your own linux-based PC or just simply going with Microsoft. If companies are so drunk on their own greed, that opens the door for new companies to begin marketing their own products. I am no business major but I believe that is what happens most of the time when a customer base wants to save more than it spends.

Oil companies get more subsidies and pay less taxes in the U.S. primarily. In other countries, they don't (U.S. oil companies).
.......................

Either way, even if Obama is reelected or Mitt Romney is elected, it doesn't matter, we will see another down-turn. Obama isn't going to do any thing about the risky derivatives trading practices that are still occurring that got us into the last recession, and Romney sure as hell won't, in fact, he'd make it easier, but at this point in time, it still would not matter either way.

I thought someone would bring it up at the town-hall, and I get caught up in the glitz and glamour myself, but Obama doesn't give a damn even though his social policies are good in my opinion, he is another corporate drone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_JPMorgan_Chase_trading_loss

Obama on the view talking about a mistake:

"

This is one of the best managed banks. You could have a bank that isn't as strong, isn't as profitable managing those same bets and we might have had to step in. That's why Wall Street reform is so important.

"Those are the words of a corporate lackey.

Wall-Street reform?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/b...-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html?_r=0

here is a specific statement within the article:

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.

That is the first paragraph of the article. Obama isn't fooling me with his spiel either.

I'd still rather have Obama in office than Mitt Romney.

 

[BobG]

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.

How come neither Obama nor Romney asked him what his major was? Maybe the best answer would have been, "You shouldn't have majored in Philosophy!"

 

[rootX]

Either way, even if Obama is reelected or Mitt Romney is elected, it doesn't matter,

Neither Romney nor Obama can do anything because of lack of bipartisan. If both candidates don't find a common ground, no matter who wins, it will be a waster of another four years.

 

[Mentalist]

Bipartisanship won't help our current plight. Both parties agree on less regulations for wall street (where most economic troubles stem from). If you have people doing risky trading like the last recession, another economic collapse is inevitable. We have seen that recently with J.P. Morgan, but nothing happened to them, Jamie Dimon is still on the NYFED and CEO.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html

So the crux is that we are bound to see nothing but misery ahead no matter who wins. In addition, even if bipartisanship comes about, we'll still see an economic collapse in the future.

 

[happysauce]

Realist? Even if what you said were true, I don't think that would be considered "realistic" in the sense you are using it.

You don't think that ending oil subsidies will raise gas prices? Give me a break.

 

[Evo]

How come neither Obama nor Romney asked him what his major was? Maybe the best answer would have been, "You shouldn't have majored in Philosophy!"

 

[Evo]

Thread closed. New thread will be opened for next debate.