News USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[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.