If a voter is still undecided, he/she is simply not paying attention. These debates are judged more by performance than substance. We celebrate when one candidate gave "more of the truth" than the other on any particular issue. So-called "fact checkers" can be found all over the internet to support any view. It's mostly theatre to me.
It all depends on how "winner" is determined. Do we take into account strictly the content of what the candidates said or do we factor in how the debate was run. For example, do we count the fact that Candy Crowley wrongly jumped to Obamas defense on his Rose Garden response to Libya? Not only was she out of line to assist the President in making his point, she was flat out wrong in what she said, watch her literally twist herself into a pretzel trying to get out of it after the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8KwR4N3Gw&feature=player_embedded
Do we factor in that she intervened on Obamas behalf by cutting off Romney as he was making a very salient point abut Obamas role in Fast & Furious? Romney was connecting the role of assault weapons in response to a question about ASSAULT WEAPONS! She then proceeded to let Obama go on and on about higher education in response to the same question. We all know that if gangbangers just had more college opportunities, they would not be seeking illegal assault weapons?????
Do we factor in that Obama actually took more than one occasion to interrupt Romney in order to remind the moderator of the rules or ask her if she wanted to move on?
Do we factor in that after clearly stating the rule that there was to be no clapping during the debate so that it would not give viewers a false advantage to either candidate, we now know that when clapping broke out during one heated exchange, none other than Michelle Obama was leading the pack. Lets see, I am an undecided voter in an audience and the First Lady of the United States starts clapping, guess it must be ok if she did it, let's join in. Way to go FLOTUS.
Do we factor in the question selection? For example: the question (by a so called undecided voter) that contained this quote " I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration." Then went on to ask Romney to compare himself to someone the questioner just defined as a failure. Remember, these questions were not spontaneous, they were pre-selected by CNN.
Or the question by again, an "undecided voter"..."Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012?" In other words, here Mr. President, I am one of your supporters, let me toss you a nice softball so that you can launch into a previously talked out campaign ad free of charge.
All in all I think given the fact that Romney had to debate not only the President but the moderator too, he did very well. Some of his most pointed questions directly to Obama were left unanswered and the President came across as petulant most of the time. The media reaction was as expected...despite the fact that there were no discernible new points, better defenses, or laudable changes in tone from the first debate, they crowned Obama the clear winner.
Who won the debate? Jill and Cheri won the debate, illustrating the exclusion of non-corporatist candidates and corporate ownership of the whole electoral process. Welcome to government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations.
What amazes me is Obama keeps blaming his failures on the Bush Administration. His lies keep going! He said he was the one who kept taxes low for the middle class? Wait a minute that was put in place by Bush. He said he ended the war on Iraq which he did not, that was done by Bush. Obama pulled out our troops from our Occupation of Iraq, but only because Iraq would not allow an extension that Obama wanted. The only thing he can claim is Obamacare, which is a burden on small businesses and tax payers.
Also, where are all the haters of the alledged Bush lies about Iraq? Here you got Obama who was caught dead on in a lie about the attack on our embassy in Libya. Which brings me to another point for all the haters of the war and those who chant, stay out of other countries affairs. Why was it okay (Meaning no one really opposed this military action) for Obama to spend billions of dollars on the air strikes and missile strike during Libya's Civil War? The only country we should focus on right now is Iran and its goal to obtain a nuclear weapon.
The more Romney and Obama debate, the more we can see the deceit and deception Obama has put out there. Here you have a CNN Moderator (Liberal Democrat) who constantly sided with Obama. I am glad she was caught with her hands in the cookie jar. Obama keeps claiming that Romney does not have a five point plan. Well what is your agenda MR Obama? Four more years of deceit, deception and bs policies?
Like I stated before, I am not all for Romney. However, I would like to see if a Business Leader can shape up our economy rather than a Civil Lawyer who does what he does best. Charm speech and bs around the truth! Obama should tread softly about Romney's financial issues as he too invest in the same things. I just hope Romney puts his money where his mouth is and brings this country around to better and brighter future. We stand a better chance with Romney than Obama.
While so many focus on the finer points of the debates.
This morning several news outlets released the fact (Based on actual Government economic numbers) that $1,030,000,000,000.00 was spent on welfare programs during fiscal year 2011. That is $1.03 Trillion in fiscal year 2011. The largest expenditure of the Federal Government.
There are some realities here;
1) There is no way to tax the rich to cover just that portion of the Federal Budget, let alone the entire budget. In fact, the democrat's proposal to tax the top 3% more will only operate the Federal Government for 8 1/2 days, that is if it doesn't slow the economy further.
2) Domestic economic growth is less than last year, which in turn is less than the year before. The year before that nearly $900 Billion was spent on the stimulus. Bottom line no matter what the spin, it simply did not work.
So what we have is growing government and dependantcy.
I am not certain what either candidate says anymore is the issue, it appears to me the questions that are not being asked are more relavent.
# Added note; The $1.03 Trillion does NOT include Medicare and Social Security
...And what are the most costly welfare "programs?" 48.9% of that trillion dollars goes to Medicaid (nearly 50 million participants), 44.2% goes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program participants (45 million participants), 26.5% goes to 25 million taxpayers illegible for the Earned Income Credit and 18.5% goes to the 20 million Americans who write off their kids as a Child Tax Credit.
The unmentioned welfare expenditure: $100 billion spent on corporate welfare.
So your answer is spending $3300 for every man, woman, child CM?
And Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credits are not included in the report by the Congressional Research Service study, the study focused expressly on non veteran spending.
The total federal spending on federal welfare programs vastly outpaced fiscal year 2011 spending on such federal expenditures as non-war defense ($540 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), and departments such as Justice ($30.5 billion), Transportation ($77.3 billion) and Education ($65.486 billion)
The 79 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. The federal welfare state includes:
12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.
With each of the above, there is an administrative cost which substantially increases the actual dollars spent, no one is implying that there should be absolutely no assistance programs, however why have an administrative burden of 12 programs providing food aid when one would be much less costly.
My point wasn't the individual expenditures however, it was that the wrong questions are being asked, and ultimately, growing the economy is the immediate remedy. The long term solution is not spending more, but streamlining the necessary expenditures and building an economy that reduces the need for increased food assistance and such. Corporate Welfare as you put it isn't even in the equation.
The fact is that poll after poll of business owners large and small cite uncertainty of future government spending, and ultimately increasing mandatory federal fees and taxes is what is holding growth back.
We all know Presidents do not control our economy, but the policies they put in place guide it. Tell me CM how does giving more and more hand outs help us with the economy. Welfare is an corrupted system. Especially, when welfare was first established to aid college students and the elderly with financial assistance. Now it is abused and you have immigrants both illegal and legal coming here and collecting welfare. Not to mention those who abuse the system. One such program is the SSD which we give people disability monies, i.e. my back hurts and I can't work. The back is the hardest disability to prove or disprove. Especially, when doctors are still disputing causes of back problems. BTW, how does anyone qualify for Social Security benefits when they have never contributed?
One thing I hope we agree on is this; if we get our economy back on track and strengthen it. We will all be better off. I firmly believe Romney has better qualifications than Obama. Yes, Romney has flip flop, but is that necessarily a bad thing? To me it shows he willing to try something different to solve a problem. Where an individual who just keeps with his ideals because, he won't look outside the box and take a different approach.
The only winner in that
The only winner in that debate was Candy the moderator.
If a voter is still
If a voter is still undecided, he/she is simply not paying attention. These debates are judged more by performance than substance. We celebrate when one candidate gave "more of the truth" than the other on any particular issue. So-called "fact checkers" can be found all over the internet to support any view. It's mostly theatre to me.
I'll be glad when this is over. GO ROMNEY!!!
Was President Obama more
Was President Obama more aggressive in this debate; absolutely. Was President Obama particularly substantive; absolutely not!
The President’s defining moment was at the end in his closing statement; a verbal sucker punch to which his opponent could not respond.
The President hide behind the moderator’s skirts, a second time.....my, how Presidential.
It all depends on how
It all depends on how "winner" is determined. Do we take into account strictly the content of what the candidates said or do we factor in how the debate was run. For example, do we count the fact that Candy Crowley wrongly jumped to Obamas defense on his Rose Garden response to Libya? Not only was she out of line to assist the President in making his point, she was flat out wrong in what she said, watch her literally twist herself into a pretzel trying to get out of it after the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8KwR4N3Gw&feature=player_embedded
Do we factor in that she intervened on Obamas behalf by cutting off Romney as he was making a very salient point abut Obamas role in Fast & Furious? Romney was connecting the role of assault weapons in response to a question about ASSAULT WEAPONS! She then proceeded to let Obama go on and on about higher education in response to the same question. We all know that if gangbangers just had more college opportunities, they would not be seeking illegal assault weapons?????
Do we factor in that Obama actually took more than one occasion to interrupt Romney in order to remind the moderator of the rules or ask her if she wanted to move on?
Do we factor in that after clearly stating the rule that there was to be no clapping during the debate so that it would not give viewers a false advantage to either candidate, we now know that when clapping broke out during one heated exchange, none other than Michelle Obama was leading the pack. Lets see, I am an undecided voter in an audience and the First Lady of the United States starts clapping, guess it must be ok if she did it, let's join in. Way to go FLOTUS.
Do we factor in the question selection? For example: the question (by a so called undecided voter) that contained this quote " I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration." Then went on to ask Romney to compare himself to someone the questioner just defined as a failure. Remember, these questions were not spontaneous, they were pre-selected by CNN.
Or the question by again, an "undecided voter"..."Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012?" In other words, here Mr. President, I am one of your supporters, let me toss you a nice softball so that you can launch into a previously talked out campaign ad free of charge.
All in all I think given the fact that Romney had to debate not only the President but the moderator too, he did very well. Some of his most pointed questions directly to Obama were left unanswered and the President came across as petulant most of the time. The media reaction was as expected...despite the fact that there were no discernible new points, better defenses, or laudable changes in tone from the first debate, they crowned Obama the clear winner.
Who won the debate? Jill and
Who won the debate? Jill and Cheri won the debate, illustrating the exclusion of non-corporatist candidates and corporate ownership of the whole electoral process. Welcome to government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations.
They shouldn't have arrested
They shouldn't have arrested Jill Stein, they should have let her moderate. She seems like a person who could have effectively cut through the B.S.
What amazes me is Obama keeps
What amazes me is Obama keeps blaming his failures on the Bush Administration. His lies keep going! He said he was the one who kept taxes low for the middle class? Wait a minute that was put in place by Bush. He said he ended the war on Iraq which he did not, that was done by Bush. Obama pulled out our troops from our Occupation of Iraq, but only because Iraq would not allow an extension that Obama wanted. The only thing he can claim is Obamacare, which is a burden on small businesses and tax payers.
Also, where are all the haters of the alledged Bush lies about Iraq? Here you got Obama who was caught dead on in a lie about the attack on our embassy in Libya. Which brings me to another point for all the haters of the war and those who chant, stay out of other countries affairs. Why was it okay (Meaning no one really opposed this military action) for Obama to spend billions of dollars on the air strikes and missile strike during Libya's Civil War? The only country we should focus on right now is Iran and its goal to obtain a nuclear weapon.
The more Romney and Obama debate, the more we can see the deceit and deception Obama has put out there. Here you have a CNN Moderator (Liberal Democrat) who constantly sided with Obama. I am glad she was caught with her hands in the cookie jar. Obama keeps claiming that Romney does not have a five point plan. Well what is your agenda MR Obama? Four more years of deceit, deception and bs policies?
Like I stated before, I am not all for Romney. However, I would like to see if a Business Leader can shape up our economy rather than a Civil Lawyer who does what he does best. Charm speech and bs around the truth! Obama should tread softly about Romney's financial issues as he too invest in the same things. I just hope Romney puts his money where his mouth is and brings this country around to better and brighter future. We stand a better chance with Romney than Obama.
[video:] http://www.youtube.c
[video:<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BQKPFwpKyE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BQKPFwpKyE4
While so many focus on the
While so many focus on the finer points of the debates.
This morning several news outlets released the fact (Based on actual Government economic numbers) that $1,030,000,000,000.00 was spent on welfare programs during fiscal year 2011. That is $1.03 Trillion in fiscal year 2011. The largest expenditure of the Federal Government.
There are some realities here;
1) There is no way to tax the rich to cover just that portion of the Federal Budget, let alone the entire budget. In fact, the democrat's proposal to tax the top 3% more will only operate the Federal Government for 8 1/2 days, that is if it doesn't slow the economy further.
2) Domestic economic growth is less than last year, which in turn is less than the year before. The year before that nearly $900 Billion was spent on the stimulus. Bottom line no matter what the spin, it simply did not work.
So what we have is growing government and dependantcy.
I am not certain what either candidate says anymore is the issue, it appears to me the questions that are not being asked are more relavent.
# Added note; The $1.03 Trillion does NOT include Medicare and Social Security
...And what are the most
...And what are the most costly welfare "programs?" 48.9% of that trillion dollars goes to Medicaid (nearly 50 million participants), 44.2% goes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program participants (45 million participants), 26.5% goes to 25 million taxpayers illegible for the Earned Income Credit and 18.5% goes to the 20 million Americans who write off their kids as a Child Tax Credit.
The unmentioned welfare expenditure: $100 billion spent on corporate welfare.
So your answer is spending
So your answer is spending $3300 for every man, woman, child CM?
And Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credits are not included in the report by the Congressional Research Service study, the study focused expressly on non veteran spending.
The total federal spending on federal welfare programs vastly outpaced fiscal year 2011 spending on such federal expenditures as non-war defense ($540 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), Medicare ($480 billion), and departments such as Justice ($30.5 billion), Transportation ($77.3 billion) and Education ($65.486 billion)
The 79 means-tested programs operated by the federal government provide a wide variety of benefits. The federal welfare state includes:
12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.
With each of the above, there is an administrative cost which substantially increases the actual dollars spent, no one is implying that there should be absolutely no assistance programs, however why have an administrative burden of 12 programs providing food aid when one would be much less costly.
My point wasn't the individual expenditures however, it was that the wrong questions are being asked, and ultimately, growing the economy is the immediate remedy. The long term solution is not spending more, but streamlining the necessary expenditures and building an economy that reduces the need for increased food assistance and such. Corporate Welfare as you put it isn't even in the equation.
The fact is that poll after poll of business owners large and small cite uncertainty of future government spending, and ultimately increasing mandatory federal fees and taxes is what is holding growth back.
We all know Presidents do not
We all know Presidents do not control our economy, but the policies they put in place guide it. Tell me CM how does giving more and more hand outs help us with the economy. Welfare is an corrupted system. Especially, when welfare was first established to aid college students and the elderly with financial assistance. Now it is abused and you have immigrants both illegal and legal coming here and collecting welfare. Not to mention those who abuse the system. One such program is the SSD which we give people disability monies, i.e. my back hurts and I can't work. The back is the hardest disability to prove or disprove. Especially, when doctors are still disputing causes of back problems. BTW, how does anyone qualify for Social Security benefits when they have never contributed?
One thing I hope we agree on is this; if we get our economy back on track and strengthen it. We will all be better off. I firmly believe Romney has better qualifications than Obama. Yes, Romney has flip flop, but is that necessarily a bad thing? To me it shows he willing to try something different to solve a problem. Where an individual who just keeps with his ideals because, he won't look outside the box and take a different approach.