News USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[mheslep]

How much of the revenue increase was due to normal GDP growth?

Historical average maybe, but I don't think we get to say there is some normal GDP growth that would have happened independent of, well, everything. Incentives in economics, i.e. tax rates, matter, though I have little idea how much.

We can say that the idea that revenue growth "didn't happen" after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is nonsense.

 

[Evo]

That's wrong too and it's a component of the error I thought we just corrected last night (I pointed it out last night, but you missed it).

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

 

[Alfi]

Historical average maybe, but I don't think we get to say there is some normal GDP growth that would have happened independent of, well, everything. Incentives in economics, i.e. tax rates, matter, though I have little idea how much.

We can say that the idea that revenue growth "didn't happen" after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is nonsense.

Was this an observation of the Presidential debate?

 

[Alfi]

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

Was this an observation from the Presidential debate?

 

[Evo]

Was this an observation from the Presidential debate?

No, a response arising out of mention of Susan Rice's interviews several days after the attack in Benghazi.

 

[mheslep]

...

“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”

What Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney also didn’t seem to know, or want to let on in the second Presidential debate, was that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline is actually already being laid out.

Romney knows. Obama went out to the beginning of the southern KXL route back in March to speak and for some photos, though the federal government has little to no role in the southern, inside the borders pipes, and is thus irrelevant to the a Presidential debate.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/22/obama.3.22.12_620x350.JPG


About the March Obama visit Romney said:

“This week he’s been taking credit for the lower half of the Keystone Pipeline being built. If I’m president, we’ll get the upper half built,” Romney said amid applause.

 

[Alfi]

If I’m president, we’ll get the upper half built,” Romney said amid applause.

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

 

[mheslep]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

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

 

[turbo]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

It's hard to nail Romney down, but he does seem to have a talent for alienating other countries with his ill-considered statements. In the debate, Obama seemed calm and secure, IMO. He trapped Romney (especially on Libya) without doing an end-zone victory dance. Good enough.

 

[rootX]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

Canadians are giving US a free bridge now US can atleast build pipes to up here

 

[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.