October 11th VP Debate Opinions
- Thread starter winex
- Start date
I voted for neither.
While my opinion of who had the better vision can probably go without saying, the fact of the matter is that Ryan wasn't given a chance to articulate that vision. As a conservative going in to something like this, you kind of expect that the moderator is going to give the liberals more time on the clock. But when one candidate is allowed to interrupt the other candidate 82 times (http://washingtonexaminer.com/rnc-biden-interrupted-ryan-82-times/article/2510543) during 37 minutes of speaking, its difficult to deliver a coherent message.
Whether the moderator was showing obvious bias towards her old friend Obama (Obama was a guest at her wedding in 1991 -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-that-vp-debate-moderator-hosted-obama-at-11/), or the moderator was simply incompetent, it is obvious that she had no business pretending to moderate the debate.
While my opinion of who had the better vision can probably go without saying, the fact of the matter is that Ryan wasn't given a chance to articulate that vision. As a conservative going in to something like this, you kind of expect that the moderator is going to give the liberals more time on the clock. But when one candidate is allowed to interrupt the other candidate 82 times (http://washingtonexaminer.com/rnc-biden-interrupted-ryan-82-times/article/2510543) during 37 minutes of speaking, its difficult to deliver a coherent message.
Whether the moderator was showing obvious bias towards her old friend Obama (Obama was a guest at her wedding in 1991 -http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-that-vp-debate-moderator-hosted-obama-at-11/), or the moderator was simply incompetent, it is obvious that she had no business pretending to moderate the debate.
cubiczirconia
New member
Without getting into details, I will just say I am still an undecided voter. Ryan didn't help seal the deal for those who swayed last week.
changm55
New member
obamas plan is to kick the bucket down another 10 years but at least he balances the budget (for the time being)... on the other hand, right now romney/ryans plan is not concrete enough for me to believe because it doesnt add up even in the best of scenarios
u have to take into account the top 15% pay 60% of our revenue, even if economy booms and we get more revenue from the rest the 85%, or everybodys pay increases, its still not gonna be enough (i think i read somewhere each year we spend about 17% over GDP, so revenue growth needs to increase 17% just to balance the budget)... thats why i keep on saying romneys arithmetic doesnt add up... him and ryans rhetoric sounds fiscally conservative, but is it really?
unfortunately that is why right, to me at least, obama seems more fiscally responsible then romney because it actually adds up :-\... i guess im just naturally a skeptic so im always hesitant with any type of rhetoric (im also in sales too haha so i know when someones trying too hard to sell something)
u have to take into account the top 15% pay 60% of our revenue, even if economy booms and we get more revenue from the rest the 85%, or everybodys pay increases, its still not gonna be enough (i think i read somewhere each year we spend about 17% over GDP, so revenue growth needs to increase 17% just to balance the budget)... thats why i keep on saying romneys arithmetic doesnt add up... him and ryans rhetoric sounds fiscally conservative, but is it really?
unfortunately that is why right, to me at least, obama seems more fiscally responsible then romney because it actually adds up :-\... i guess im just naturally a skeptic so im always hesitant with any type of rhetoric (im also in sales too haha so i know when someones trying too hard to sell something)
changm55
New member
well heres how i understand it, please chime in to correct me cause of course im just gonna super generalize...
obamas plan = (social security/medicaid essentially leave the same, long term decrease medicaid via his obamacare) + (increase revenue via taxes) + (decrease military spending)
romneys plan = (decrease social security/medicaid) + (decrease revenue, long term eventually increase via growth) + (leave military spending the same)
right now as brutal as it sounds, we need to severely axe social security and medicaid for romneys plan to actually work if he wants to decrease taxes... his lowering taxes requires him to remove deductions to the point where we actually get a surplus in taxes compared to the status quo rates, i dont see that being possible... if he comes out and says that he will also severly axe social security/medicaid, then ill vote for him right away because thats the truth that no american wants to hear... if social security/medicaid is the sole "nest egg" for ppl, then they are dumb in the first place for relying on the gov
obamas plan = (social security/medicaid essentially leave the same, long term decrease medicaid via his obamacare) + (increase revenue via taxes) + (decrease military spending)
romneys plan = (decrease social security/medicaid) + (decrease revenue, long term eventually increase via growth) + (leave military spending the same)
right now as brutal as it sounds, we need to severely axe social security and medicaid for romneys plan to actually work if he wants to decrease taxes... his lowering taxes requires him to remove deductions to the point where we actually get a surplus in taxes compared to the status quo rates, i dont see that being possible... if he comes out and says that he will also severly axe social security/medicaid, then ill vote for him right away because thats the truth that no american wants to hear... if social security/medicaid is the sole "nest egg" for ppl, then they are dumb in the first place for relying on the gov
world chaos said:
Honesty you need to spend some time researching the issues. You are so far off base that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Under 8 years of President Bush, the national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion.
Under 4 years of Obama, the national debt has gone from 10 trillion to 16.2 trillion.
Granted the way that history played itself out, the 4.4 trillion in increased debt under Bush was inflated because $800 billion of that 4.4 trillion number was loans under TARP that were repaid. This also reduced the increase in the national debt under Obama by the same amount.
You can fault Bush with increasing the national debt and I would not argue with you. But how can you call Obama a fiscal conservative when he has run up the national debt by 50% more in half the time?
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Sadly... that can't be said for either of the two parties anymore.winex said:
usctrojancpa
Well-known member
With this election, just like with many of the previous ones, is all about picking the lesser of two evils. I don't see either of these candidates making a difference.
qwerty
Well-known member
ultimately this country is going into the shitter any way you look at it. the majority of people rely (or are going to) rely on social security and medicare/medicaid in their retirement - since that is the majority of the vote no one will ever really do anything to lose out on those votes. the overspending issue in this country will never get fixed until the fix is forced up on us. eventually you will have to many people on the wagon and not enough people pulling the wagon and system will fall apart.
qwerty said:
Sorry, but I couldn't avoid correcting the facts that you misstated.
The national debt was 5.6 trillion when Bush took office and 10 trillion when he left office 8 years later, not 4 years later. If you count the $800 billion TARP money that added to the national debt run-up totals under Bush, he added 4.4 trillion over 8 years. 4.4 trillion is an increase of 78.5% in the national debt over 8 years. If you didn't count TARP as part of the debt, then he ran up the debt by a total of 3.6 trillion over 8 years, or a 64.2% increase over 8 years.
Either number (78.5% or 64.2%) is still obscene.
In percent terms, if you forget that $800 billion of Bush's debt was paid back during Obama's term, he increased debt by $6.2 trillion, or about 62% in 4 years. If you start the base at $9.2 trillion to account for the TARP money that was repaid and thus lowered the national debt, then Obama increased the national debt by 76.1% in 4 years.
Putting us into debt faster than Bush did is not the mark of a fiscal conservative.
changm55
New member
winex said:
well im not looking at what obama has done in the past, but on the current platform they are running on only
with that said, whether or not they carry out their platform is a different story, congress might show resistance and/or war might happen, who knows... not trying to defend either bush or obama... but rather just trying to figure out what the romney vs obama platforms really are ???
at this point, both candidates are so entrenched in rhetoric i cant really tell whether or not either of their numbers add up or if there are actually any significant cuts that will make a big enough impact... at this point obama/biden platform seems to not want to touch social security/medicare but they want to axe military spending... tax wise they want to tax more... while on the other hand romney/ryan platform seems like they want to decrease social security/medicare but dont want to touch military spending... tax wise they want to tax less (or the same, if u include the suggested removal of deductions)... is this right?
lets not include economic growth and/or ballooning social security into the equation, cause then it becomes somewhat rhetorical
qwerty
Well-known member
the military spending stuff is what i find kind of obscene - i think the US spends more on defense than something like the next 17 countries combined? (not sure if i saw that on an earlier post or read on CNBC/CNNMoney - although if we dont spend it on defense it will just go to unemployment since all those people would be unemployed. defense spending (above some basic level) is just another form of socialism.
The Motor Court Company
Well-known member
Obama being fiscal conservative is the same way as living off a major freeway being tranquil.