Not even close, will be a blowout. Liberal moderator who invited Obama to her wedding will be very biased. 

Joe laughing while our people are dying. Stay classy Joe...

Yeah, pretty much this. "Tearing apart" may be strong, but Biden is being Biden. 

Biden won't let Ryan talk, and when Biden talks he rants for forever on other topics not at hand. 

"my friend"?... Seriously?

Being a bully and interrupting every second isn't "tearing apart", it is being rude, and America hates rude. 

Watch the polls, as the character biden has shown will clearly turn off a ton of voters. 

It feels like he wants to start a lot of his tangents with "Look, kid . . . " 

‎"Watch out middle class the tax bill is coming to YOU". Ryan wins debate with one line...

I wonder how much of Biden being Biden in this was to make up for Obama's sort of reserved presence in the first debate? I also wonder if that's even possible -- it'd take some assumption that Biden listens to his handlers. 

I agree with you, though. He stuck to the party points -- well, both did -- and I think he walked away pretty OK. Ryan did as well, although I think Biden had the upper-hand on the foreign policy and social/domestic issues, whereas Ryan's calm and collection during the economic stuff made him come off better. 

 

I think that they said very little in their time. I still believe that Biden won the debate as far as "winning" goes, but I don't think either of them forwarded or reversed their respective cause.

Overall I was pretty disappointed, I think the whole debate played off like a PBS discussion panel-a couple of disgruntled old people arguing economics around a coffee cup.

Oh well, on to presidential debate #2 I suppose.

Guess he didn't get the memo. Or maybe he just believes the lie?

The depressant his handler sprinkled in his pre-debate oatmeal finally kicked in somewhere before foreign policy. 

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/pile-of-manure-dumped-on-an-ohio-democratic-headquarters/" rel="nofollow - http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/pile-of-manure-dumped-on-an-ohio-democratic-headquarters/

Shocking... It is what the liberal media DOES... Just like the AP who put the picture out of Romney and the little girl... Nothing like media bias that is plain as day. 

This "exchange" summed up the debate. 

Biden came off extremely rude, and wouldn't let Ryan talk without interrupting him. And when he didn't like what Ryan said that proved him wrong, he strawmanned. 

Ryan didn't say he was Kennedy, he was giving examples that if you tax something MORE you get LESS of it...

And biden as a hardcore leftist, doesn't want to see reality, so he attacks something in his own mind that didn't happen...

The public doesn't like that. And the poll numbers will prove that fact. I'm sure hardcore leftists loved the debate, as that is all they have, being rude and needing a liberal media to "fact" check their stories. 

We all know the democrats couldn't afford another debate blunder. So the media will do their best to propagandize that Biden won. And yet, the polls will tell a different story, as the only people who would like bidens "performance" are hardcore MSNBC far left liberals who live in a strange "liberality" in their minds. 

Obama will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for their massive no budget spending spree, that is the most expensive in world history, and they can't even keep up with PRINTING as much money as they are spending...

Romney will slow down spending, (not what I would want, but a middle of the road call) I think we need to cut the federal government in half or more...

The country likes the middle, and biden proved that the Obama/biden ticket is far left, while the Romney/ryan ticket is middle of the road...

The state of the world AND our economy is no laughing matter... Unless you are a far left liberal I guess.

The debate was nonsense, and is irrelevant. Neither man will change anyone's opinions in any meaningful way. Biden did a little better than I expected, as did Ryan. I didn't expect much from the moderator, and I wasn't disappointed. No on will feel any differently tomorrow than they did today. 

The next two debates between Obama and Romney will be more convincing to many people. 

Now I am living in Tokyo, and I have been working in the financial industry here. Most people here like Obama, they think he looks good and acts cool (cool is important in Japan), but few people want to see him as president for another 4 years. America has always been the engine which has driven the world's economies, and the current drivers of that engine couldn't find their backsides with both hands and a flashlight. 

The upcoming election has a lot at stake, not just for America, but for Europe and Japan as well. The last 4 years have been murky, with no meaningful leadership from America of any kind. Vast amounts of stimulus money has been spent to "jumpstart" the economy, but most of this money has been given to the states, which in turn have used the money to pay their government workers. Almost none of this money has made it to the private sector. The public sector does employ many, but it generates no net revenue for the government. 

Unemployment went down last week, but only because 800,000 new government jobs were "created". There was nearly no growth in the private sector. In real world numbers, government workers would not be considered in an employment poll, once again, because they generate no net revenue to the economy. For each public sector job, there should be at least 25 private sector jobs. These private sector jobs generate enough tax revenue to pay for the public sector workers. 

The rest of the stimulus has been the printing of money, which the government has used to buy it's own bonds, which devalues the currency, making gas, food, and everything more expensive to ordinary people. 

Obama said during his debate that his administration had "reduced the deficit by one trillion dollars". Deficit and debt have two different meanings. When he said he "reduced the deficit" it means that projected spending was reduced, not that any actual money was saved or recovered. In his first term in office, Obama has added more money to the debt than all the previous presidents combined, included Bush. At the moment, your family's share of this debt is $137,000. Any guess how much it might be the current president gets another 4 years to manage the economy?

I don't like Romney, but I dislike Obama even more. I think Obama is a good man, even an honest and well-meaning man, but he is a terrible president. 

Yep. The VP debates historically don't do much unless one candidate is really out there, like Palin's winking. And even that didn't show a direct drop in the polls, it just brought up the questions about her into the light. 

but most of this money has been given to the states, which in turn have used the money to pay their government workers.

 

I don't think you're using the word "most" in its correct intention. 

Almost none of this money has made it to the private sector.

 

Ok, so let's assume that you were correct, that most of it simply "went to government workers," what did they do with it? 

The public sector does employ many, but it generates no net revenue for the government.

 

That's largely not the intention of those jobs, either. 

In real world numbers, government workers would not be considered in an employment poll, once again, because they generate no net revenue to the economy.

 

Whut?

In his first term in office, Obama has added more money to the debt than all the previous presidents combined, included Bush.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/04/chain-email/obama-has-added-more-national-debt-previous-43-pre/" rel="nofollow - You got that e-mail too? 

I hear ya. I enjoy chatting about this stuff, and I don't have to go in for office hours until 1 p.m. (My students are working on their first-ever news stories, so I'm expecting the HEEELP brigade to hit early and often) so I've got time to chat through some stuff. 

I'm just not quite sure a country of our size could ever possibly do anything -- especially not exist on the global scale -- without using a forward deficit and debt. 

usappilot07 wrote: Biden is a smug asshole.

 

Gonna have to agree on both parts. The "my friend" thing got on my nerves quickly. I only got to watch 10 minutes or so before the remote was sweet talked out of my control to watch some of the shows we have DVR'd from the prior week, but I though Biden came off as a total jerk off. Granted, I have never had a very good impression of him, but last night was particularly annoying. The smirking and laughing at everything Ryan said was totally unprofessional and he came off as a chuckle head. I did DVR the entire thing and may go back and watch it today if I have a chance.

 

I had to cringe last time voting for McCain with the thought of Palin taking the reins if something happened, I think I'll listen to that cringe this time.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slips-vice-presidents-debate-023354584--election.html" rel="nofollow - http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slips-vice-presidents-debate-023354584--election.html

 

Seemed pretty even to me. Honestly, I toss out anything having to do with religion or abortion because I just don't care.

You are stacking the deck if you believe either party's cheerleaders. 

Politics are all about mudslinging. The democrats have the media and college professors who champion their cause, and the republicans have business leaders, twitter, and a large portion of the web/talk radio. 

But, ignore all of that noise, and look at where we are as a country. The democrats when in charge will spend more money than anyone else in the history of the world... No budget, wasting money on projects all over the country that don't actually "fix" anything. I live in Cincy, and part of the money that Obama has spend went to a new streetcar system here... To go from the hood of Cincy into town and back to the hood in a nice tiny loop. It is pandering to democrat voters, as the city of Cincinnati can't afford to keep the pools open, and they  have NO CLUE how they will pay for this new railway. Shoot Metro buses are losing money so fast it is crazy...

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/" rel="nofollow - http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/

So they are spending money that will only cause MORE money to be spent forever to keep it going, even though it will be a crime magnet, and who can't walk a couple blocks?... People won't pay the "true" cost to ride it, so it is again another waste of money, that will just keep sucking tax dollars away from the city. 

Every project that has "good intentions" ends up TAKING money from a taxpayer to pay for... And when you take from someone, they get sick of it, and will produce less, so you TAKE less. 

If you vote for the democrats, you are supporting government takeover of healthcare, manufacturing, education, energy, and every other business as they are the party of big government, and you not being able to keep YOUR money, but giving it to them so they can spend it FOR you as you are too dumb to figure out how to spend your own cash...

Republicans aren't much better, but still... They pass budgets, and with the Tea Party rising up, they are starting to be held accountable...

I can't imagine voting for Obama after looking at our economy for two seconds... It makes no sense unless you trust government. Everything they do is a huge waste of money and ineffective, are we actually safer from the TSA? Does the post office waste money? Is your social security in a "lock box" or spent?...

Ever wondered what Biden was scribbling between his guffaws? well wonder no more... Clearly a "deep" thinker. One heartbeat away...

 

Had you stopped right here, I would have given you applause sir. I'd say that this is the essence of conservatism...wanting the market to make the choices and the government to have as little as possible intervention in the market. Of course the as possible is where we'll all disagree, but I think your concerns are valid regarding the direction of modern politics. I disagree that it's a Democrat specific issue, and of course I am fairly socially liberal, but I think your points are the gist of why I vote Republican 9/10 times. But then you said this...

 

FE wrote: They pass budgets, and with the Tea Party rising up, they are starting to be held accountable...

 

I've said it a thousand times, but the Tea Party is so far to the right they make Reagan look like a liberal. They're being held accountable to standards they never agreed to.

 

But you've posted alot of great points here so I think we can agree to disagree on this one

example...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/12/columbia-panel-on-occupy-tea-party-movements-was-unbalanced-affair-critic-says/" rel="nofollow - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/12/columbia-panel-on-occupy-tea-party-movements-was-unbalanced-affair-critic-says/  

 

The trouble is that any cause without a purpose will fall to the same corruption that affects the parties. The tea party's attempt to be a nonpartisan grassroots movement is very silly when they clearly endorse right wing agendas-small government (except for gay marriage), less spending (except for the military), and fewer restrictions on the free market (this part I'll actually give them.)

 

Now, I love one of your questions because it brings up the kind of dilemma I found myself in when I began shifting from my far right tendencies (they're loud and proud on this forum, by the way...I could have been the tea partier in chief)

 

FE wrote:   Moving the Republican party to the right a little would help our countries spend less, and live within their means, how is that a bad idea?...

 

This brings up a very interesting contradiction that the right faces. First you have

 

FE wrote: Business owners

 

See, the trouble is that the left paints big business as an evil overlord almost to Marx levels of oppression while the right paints them as good intentioned bastions of the free market being oppressed by the left.

 

But business really lies somewhere in between. It's a self interested entity that happens to make up the most important part of our society's existence as a free market. You can't live without business, but you can't trust business to put people over profits.

 

This is where government comes in.

 

Let's look at this statement-

 

FE wrote: As now I have to pay a massive amount of money for healthcare and other costs, if they work for my company. This is an unskilled labor need, (scrapping out die cut projects) where the people don't need a degree or level of mechanical skill. They just show up and pull paper apart for hours on end. Most of the people doing this job have NO business experience at all, many don't even have a high school diploma. And this is the group hardest affected by the "obama economy".

 

See, I agree with you 100%. This is where the Republican in me hates the Obamacare plan...I don't think business should be forced to take on the massive brunt of American healthcare.

 

But the liberal in me says the government should be responsible for this.

 

Why?

 

Because the government simply reallocates money. It does very inefficiently and with alot of legal theft, but in the end the goal is to move money from the individual to a service. Health care is that kind of service. If the government offers universal healthcare business is still able to thrive only under an increased tax rate.

 

But then Republicans are like WAIT! RAISE TAXES! ERMAHGAWRD YOULL DESTROY THE FRIGGIN MIDDLE CLASS! WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE MIDDLE CLASS!

 

You can't have it both ways. Somebody has to be responsible for healthcare-if you want the individual to be responsible for the health care then the only way he or she can do so is through an employer. But the employer is not going to want to provide the high costs of modern insurance.

 

So by Republican logic, the employer shouldn't be forced to and the government shouldn't be forced so in other words poor people should just not be treated for sickness. Because like it or not, a large portion of our market is unskilled labor or those with degrees that are no longer viable and these people can't afford 40K medical bills and 500 dollar dental / medical visits.

 

There has to be a solution-in the end society will bear the brunt of medical costs be it through emergency care, insurance, or god forbid, simply losing population.

 

The tea party likes to pretend that the free market will take care of these people. But the market isn't an individual it's a system made up of self interested people. If you want to see unregulated market tendencies look at the industrial revolution. 12 year olds working 60 hours a week, people losing fingers and limbs and being forced out of their way of life and being immediately replaced. These are basic protections the government provides through regulation and I see health care in the same way.

 

Job creation isn't humanitarian it's economic. If you have X amount of dollars you can afford Y amount of employees. If you raise X, Y goes up. If you lower X, Y goes down.

 

This obviously is way oversimplified, but the idea behind conservative tax plans is that more money = more growth. That's the trouble I have with the left on the topic of the economy...some of them act like jobs just magically pop out of thin air because screw it that's how it works. In reality jobs exist to expand production, and production is only expanded via growth in income.

 

So between the multi-million dollar corporations and some dude's home lawn care business, which one would you pump money into to create jobs?

 

I'm not saying Jethro's  Lawn Care and Bug Service doesn't matter because it certainly matters to his family and to the local community, but when you look at unemployment numbers you're looking at a massive quantity and to affect that percentage you need to enhance the market in massive ways.

 

The government NEVER enhances the market. It NEVER promotes growth on its own. It NEVER does anything but TAKE. That's economics 101...any job the government creates was created out of someone else's money that was taken from them without choice. So if you can promote growth in the private sector you get a higher rate of return with less loss than the highly inefficient big brother doing your accounting fo ryou.

 

NYer wrote: Lastly according to CNN and a few studys the TAX PLAN Romney stated needs to be paid for, which mathimatically requires cutting loops holes that help middle class and small businessess (the type making under 250K)[ME] Now Romney did say thats not true but still havent stated where the money is coming from.

 

And I'd tend to agree with what Romney said in the debate-with the way businesses classify themselves it's almost impossible to separate Jethro's Lawn Care from Nike or Adidas. Your classification as a small business or corporation isn't necessarily determined by the amount of money you make-so to raise taxes or cut loopholes for one you generally are going to affect the other.

 

Besides, you're looking at success through a punitive light. "X company is so huge they should be forced to give up more of their money. I'm small so I deserve to be given back more of my money." Companies work off of bottom lines-if you hurt the bottom line of a large business they cut jobs. When they cut jobs far more people are affected than when Jethro buys a cheaper set of blades.

 

NYer wrote: Anyway last 4 years did suck to some degree but really the last 12 sucked Obama inherited a TON of CRAP and lathough he didnt fix it he did help it a little and I think if more of his ideas were voted on instead of philibustered he could have done more.

 

You have to continue your logic chain though. The left tends to like the idea that all negative things stop on Bush's doorstop, but the fact is that the "X inherited" argument just keeps going backwards. Bush inherited the near popping housing and dot com bubbles from Clinton.

 

And all that good stuff Clinton did? He inherited it from Reagan.

 

Every president inherits something from another, that's where they're supposed to put on their big boy pants and do some good things that they can take credit for. Obama has very little of those.

 

NYer wrote: Fact unemployment shrunk not as much as he wanted but some

 

FACT-all administrations "enhance" job statistics. The pretty way of saying it is that they all report them differently, the truth is that they lie. Unemployment is still a terrible problem.

 

NYer wrote: Fact our FAKE war on iraq ended and he got Osama

 

You can't be serious.

 

NYer wrote: Does the state of affairs suck - yea but is it slowly getting better at home and abroad yea slowly.. Remember he is undoing 8 years of Bush EVIL !   so there is my vote and my two cents thanks for reading

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but the Democrats can only blame Bush for so long until their own failures bleed through.

 

I think Bush was a poor president, but for the same reason as I dislike Obama-he did very little GOOD. The bad is up for debate...I think he made some bad decisions for sure, but I wouldn't blame the economy, unemployment, etc on him. I blame him for not working to decrease the deficit, I blame him for massive money to failing banks, I blame him for the PATRIOT Act, and I blame him for poorly representing our country to the world post-9/11.

 

But I can blame Obama for almost the same things. Obama did next to nothing to stop the NDAA, did next to nothing to work against the PATRIOT Act and bailouts, and has simply increased the deficit instead of lowering it.

 

So my opinion is that it's time for a new leader. Is Romney that person? I dunno, but this one isn't working out.

Well that's untrue. 

People will generally take the things you have to say a lot more seriously if you don't call people evil. 

That's not evil. I just disagree with the decisions he made, which I honestly think were the result of listening to Cheney and Rumsfeld more than making his own decisions. 

Articulation will carry you far -- I'd suggest looking into it. 

 

Perhaps never is a strong choice of words, but I do feel that there's an inherent loss through inefficiency when the government makes moves in the free market.

 

Any money the government has to use is the result of the market itself. That money, run through the beaureaucratic process, comes out the other end devalued. So you take $100 from a business to funnel into another via stimulus, grant, etc etc, once you take out the actual government costs of doing business that money is going to be cut in part. So it may take $1000 from one business to move $100 to another.

 

Again, this is all very simplified compared to the real process, but I've always seen the government as a terrible handler of money. Any promotion the government does to business could have been done on the market with a fraction of the economic loss.

 

Not to say that the market doesn't need to be persuaded, but from my limited viewpoint it seems that this always done at an overall economic loss. Take price floors. They're necessary to keep farmers above par, but they really damage the overall market by elevating prices above what it would typically demand.

 

I'm not saying that government regulation / input is unnecessary, I'm say that it's almost never efficient or ideal. So I don't look at economic problems and say "How could the government fix this?" I look at them and say "Where is the market lacking?" and see the need for the government to fill in those holes.

I'm say that it's almost never efficient or ideal.

But, to say: 

The government NEVER enhances the market. It NEVER promotes growth on its own. It NEVER does anything but TAKE.

 

But these are humanitarian benefits not necessarily economic.

 

From a social perspective I'm fairly liberal. I'm all about health, education, and enviornmental initiatives if they serve an overall purpose to the human spectrum.

 

I see the government's responsibility as filling holes the private sector is not motivated to fill. So in that case profit is no longer the goal because the private market never saw a profit to be had. In other words, I feel the government excels in situations where a loss is offset by a non monetary gain.

 

So Medicare, Medicaid, health initiatives, education initiatives, etc would not exist without government involvement.

 

But for the sake of the free market in and of itself, I don't see the government as having a massive positive impact. On a purely economic basis involvement by the government generally means that A:) the private sector was uninterested or unmotivated by the project at hand or B:) someone is failing somewhere.

 

Looking at it from that point of view, I see most government involvement in the free market as a sign of financial trouble.

 

To put a specific example-the government as a job creator. As I stated earlier, job growth and economic growth are, in many ways, tied together. I realize that there are jobs that thrive in times of economic distress, but on the whole bad economy is going to contribute in some way job loss.

 

For the government to funnel money into dying companies it often means that the government is artificially stimulating a product that the market has chosen for extinction. Look at the S and L bailouts from the 80's, or the auto industry bailouts of recent.

 

That doesn't mean that the government did so without merit-the job loss would have been pretty diasasterous for alot of people-but again, we get back to the humanitarian issue and not an economic issue. For this to be an economic cause there will need to be future growth from these industries, otherwise it was simply money lost.

 

This is, of course, a deeply intricate subject with alot of caveats and exceptions, but when I look at economic policies on the whole I prefer a hands off approach. I believe it was McKinley who ran on the idea that government didn't have all the answers to the private sector whoas so why should he even pretend? That's why I think sometimes the best answer to the economic sector is to take your hands off the wheel and let the bad times turn into good times.

 

I could, obviously, be very wrong but it's fun to argue

 

But Medicaid and Medicare also operate at the expense of the hospital or provider doing the treatment.

 

They're able to get away with paying hospitals 12-30% of the bill whereas a commercial company could never operate at such a rate.

 

The key to longevity in government programs is operating at a loss. If a company were to operate at government efficiencies it would be bankrupt in a year. But those losses affect the private sector.

 

Now hospitals bring up the argument as to whether or not healthcare should be private, but that's a whole 'nuther debate that I'm not necessarily qualified to dig into. But I think it's a good example on how something may operate efficiently by the standards of the government but that efficiency represents a loss to the private sector.

Businesses don't hire more employees just because they can afford it.  There has to be need for them to do the job.  No one is going to hire 3 people to do a one person job just because they have a bunch of money.  That is the problem I see with the Republican economic plan; it doesn't create the need for more employees.  Jobs are lost because the businesses don't need them any more.  Businesses don't need them anymore because their demand has gone down.  Demand has gone down because people lost jobs.  The only way to stop the cycle is to get people to start buying things and using services to increase demand.  If you do this, the businesses will have both more money to hire more people and also a need to hire people to keep up with demand.  You won't have more jobs without both of those. 

 

You're absolutely right-you can't artificially create demand. This goes back to what I was saying earlier about how the market makes its own decisions regardless of government intervention. If the market decides that there's no longer a demand for a VHS tape all the intervention in the world won't save it.

 

You're promoting the same idea that I am-the market moves on its own accord and will rise and fall on its own whims. By this logic, I don't see how further taxing a business does anything but slow this process. 

 

NOW DISCLAIMER. Romney cannot and will not accomplish what he's saying. Very few presidents in history have made vast, sweeping decisions that have great effects on the market. So I'm not trying to say that if you vote Romney the deficit gets cut and we all get jobs. That's just political crap they all say to get elected.

 

For my money the president affects very little of the economy, so I vote based on how I see the decision at hand being played out against my own ideas. I have no delusions that casting a vote for Obama will destroy American business or that a vote for Romney frees us all from an oppressive deficit. And I don't live in a dream world where we can just lower taxes all around and cut the defiict-but I would like to live in a world where the success of big business isn't punitively and the government doesn't write checks on the bank account of the market.

 

But I also don't care about the decisions of Bush. We're almost a decade post-Bush and it's high time the Democrats stop riding their own failures on the back of that one president. It's also time to end the comeback to conservative fiscal policy that is "Bush did this so obviously conservatism fails." Bush wasn't a conservative. He was a social conservative but a huge spender and his term is not a reflection on conservatism. If anything it's a reflection on careless spending policies.

 

This is very true. The one consistency among politicians is their inconsistency in accomplishing their goals.