Post-debate thoughts

[barondave]

Generally, a good debate. I was amused the the moderator kept trying to get Obama and McCain to talk to each other. He failed, though occasionally Obama directed his remarks at his opponent. Barack was far more laid back and comfortable than John. Personally, I scored Obama as an A- and gave McCain a solid B.

FactCheck.org has a good analysis of the statements and misstatements made. (Thanks to sleigh for the link.) While both did some spin, Obama nailed McCain several times (eg on Kissinger) and McCain mischaracterized Obama's positions rather desperately (eg Obama didn't vote on a "bill" to raise taxes for people "making as little as $42K"; he voted for a resolution urging the repeal of Bush's tax cuts which would have restored some taxation (some!) down to that level. That was a long time ago and the economic situation has changed... for the worse). McCain was just wrong about the letter Ike wrote before D-Day and how earmarks have "tripled" in the last few years (they've declined, especially since the Democrats took both houses of Congress).

It seemed McCain was winging it in the beginning, and came off a poor second. Later, he started slinging Republican talking points (calling Obama "the most liberal senator" which may play to the goppie "base" but is a high compliment for many) and getting back to his stump speech. Obama had gravitas and McCain had barely restrained passion. McCain is losing, and the Palin pick is turning into a disaster. He needed to do much better than Obama, and he came off as barely holding his own against a superior leader.

For over a year, the 24-hour "news" channels have been pretending the overnight polls actually mattered. Well, now they do, and they all favor Obama.

Aside: I don't like to pillory people for being mostly right but wrong in specifics, especially when I agree with them. McCain said he would "fire" SEC head Cox when the president doesn't have the power to do that. In the debate, he ameliorated that to "call for his resignation" which is fairly similar (a president can put a lot of pressure on people he doesn't have direct control over) and I tend to agree that Cox (among others) should go.

Similarly, Obama kept saying Iraq has a $79 billion surplus. It was projected that high, but is likely to come in at about $60 billion. That's still far more than the $10 billion we're sending to the country not counting the $12 billion in cash sent on pallets and his basic assertion that Iraq can and should pay for its reconstruction is correct.

Comments

are you kidding?

[swseat.livejournal.com]

repealing a tax cut IS an increase. An increase in taxes means you pay more! Is this Demspeak? Also, Kissinger says Obama Misquoted him, Glad you count that as a win. When your retirement funds are gone in double digit inflation and gas is 10 bucks a gallon, enjoy that 1200 buck OBama robs from the rich and gives to you.

Re: are you kidding?

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

A resolution is not an Act. A resolution on a matter is simply a show of support for said matter, it's not an actual action.

The resolution would not have repealed anything, it would have simply showed support for a repeal.

There was also a lot more to that Bush tax cut than met the eye. That cut gave larger cuts to the rich than it did to the average person. The idea of tax cuts to the rich is so they would have more to put back into the economy, but with all this overseas outsourcing going on, it's not happening! The rich and the corporate bigwigs are spending their extra money overseas, therefore devaluing the dollar, therefore putting more pressure on the poor...

...and that is why the Dems supported a repeal...they wanted it repealed in favor of a cut that would actually benefit the everyman in the long run!

[asimovberlioz.livejournal.com]

Historically, a president who wants somebody named Cox fired doesn't do so well afterwards.

Re: are you kidding?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

A "resolution" isn't a "bill". Please read more carefully. The Bush tax cuts -- like those of Reagain's twenty years earlier -- had the specific purpose of stimulating the economy and run a surplus. Both failed to do so, rather spectacularly. You've been duped. We now have the Reagan/Bush Debt, which is a bigger tax than anything so far. You're paying $4 a gallon due to Bush's ineptitude; do you like that?

You are the one who'd been kidded, and you don't get it.

And no, Kissinger didn't say that.

Ridiculous comments like yours just demonstrate: We don't need bipartisanship. We need adults in charge. We need to clean up the mess that Bush has left.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Heh. Especially if you're on tape...

Re: are you kidding?

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

Actually, Kissinger did say that he was misquoted, but he also made it clear that he agrees with Obama's fundamental point: You start engaging opponents by first simply agreeing to an exchange of opinions, without any preconditions or demands for particular outcomes. You start making demands when you get to the point of talking people in a position to make actual, implementable decisions.

Re: are you kidding?

[swseat.livejournal.com]

So you would agree that resolution or bill, voting yea for repeal of a tax cut would indicate you want those people affected to pay more taxes. If not, explain it to me. Now, your reply that the Bush deficits were the result of the lowered taxes, I would disagree with you there too. The Bush deficits were the result of a two sided war on terror, some of it not his fault and some of it was his fault. That war was a bad idea. The cost to defend the safety of the country from terrorist was an unavoidable expense and neither a democrat or republican would have avoided that. I have never been a Bush fan. I didn't even vote for him the first time and would not have the second time if the democrats had of not fielded an idiot for a candidate. Hillary would have had my vote this year. Obama has proposed a tax cut for 95% (he says that but then the threashold would be 87% if you include the number of people paying social security maximum which he also wants to make unlimited) If he pays for it with tax increases for the rich, some will decide to take their money over seas. You really can do that if you are rich. That's part of the reason we have lost so many companies already. He has also named many new programs, but has not indicated and again refused in the debate to name any place he was cutting programs to pay for the new ones. It's not that I think McCain is wonder boy, I don't like him. But Obama is either not telling the truth to get elected by promising what he can't deliver or he is going to ruin us trying to deliver. $4.00 per gallon? Gas will be cheap if Obama gets in, you just won't have a job to pay for it.

Re: are you kidding?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Bush deficits were the result of the lowered taxes, I would disagree with you there too.

If you take in less money and spend more money, you go into debt. Why can't conservatives add and subtract? This is a serious question. Were you absent all of third grade? See This analysis of the Federal Debt (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm).

The Bush deficits were the result of a two sided war on terror

So how much more in taxes would you pay to be safe? Obviously, whatever the Bush administration tried failed miserably. You have a choice: Be safe and slightly poorer or have a few extra bucks to spend on gas but face imminent attack. Which one do you choose?

According to factcheck.org, the figure on Obama's tax cuts is 81% of households. You apparently didn't actually read the link above, and your staggering amount of right-wing political correctness is fast losing your credibility.

I don't have a job now, thanks (in large measure) to Bush and the radical right being in power. Further, under Clinton average wages grew. Under Bush, average wages fell. Your last sentence is wholly wrong.
When you voted for Bush, either term, your reduced spending power was worse than any tax cut. The growth under Democrats outweighs any tax increases. Republicans are always bad for the economy. They claim otherwise, though, but only gullible people believe them. That's the GOP "base".

Re: are you kidding?

[swseat.livejournal.com]

Finally, something we can agree on! If you cut taxes and spend more money you go into debt. If you raise taxes by xx amount on the rish, pass it on to the poor, heck that's just socialism and doesn't have any effect on the deficit. But then you add free health care to everyone, open the doors to all who enter the country illegally and let them stay and get that free health care. Increase funding for a number of other programs and take away the capital gains tax rate to make it harder to make a living as a farmer, invester or business owner, you also have a deficit. I would love to have universal health care. My medicine is so expensive, I have to have coverage at work. Otherwise I might be able to retire. But once again, Obama is promising everything but doesn't say how he is going to pay for it. The first guy to balance the budget was Dwight. I would agree it sure didn't follow that the next one would balance the budget. I also remember that during Carter era, you couldn't buy a house, the rate was like 15% Inflation was terrible. Our military was weak and the middle east thumbed their nose and took our hostages. Reagan built up the military and in my mind went overboard. You cannot build guns and not effect the cost of butter. Then both Clinton and Bush senior enjoyed the might of the buildup without having to spend as much on defense. I do not want bigger government. I think Obama will spend more than Mccain. I think the Democrats will continue to control the house and senate. I think McCain would keep us in the middle. Sorry to hear you are unemployed. I work for an insurance company. One that laid off enough reinsurance to survive Katrina and avoided risky investments and survived the mortgage problems (so far). Good luck in your job hunt. I am from Missouri and you might find it interesting that I am voting for the Democratic candidate for governor. Jay Nixon has been a watchdog for bad business practices. His no call list has some teeth in it and everytime I have needed the office they came through when he was attorney general.

Re: are you kidding?

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Finally, something we can agree on! If you cut taxes and spend more money you go into debt

Ah, good. You'll be voting for Democratic candidates, then.

But if you want to regain your lost credibility, you and the other conservatives have to admit you were wrong. I don't see that in your post. You're still just mindlessly slinging GOP buzzwords. If you really were concerned about the economy you'd be dumping on Bush and McCain for their huuuuuge deficits and congratulating Clinton for his surpluses and admiring Obama for providing sensible leadership in this area.

If the weatherperson said it was fair weather and it rained... for 35 years... would you trust them? Of course not. On the economy, as in most other areas, the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong. Until I hear some mea culpas from the extreme right, we can and should ignore them.