Posted on 10/17/2012 9:43:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Back in 1968, Alabama Governor George Wallace thundered that “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.” Wallace’s famous quote sprung to mind last night as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama squared off in their second debate.
Surely there were differences between them, but to watch the debate was to see two candidates vying to say who would cut taxes the least for top earners, who would “crack down” most on China, and who believed the most in an “all of the above” energy strategy. Neither said much of import, if at all, each candidate won certain segments, but the impossible to escape conclusion was just how unimpressive both candidates were.
It was like two beginners playing tennis with each other, neither able to hit the ball over the net. Both deserve to lose.
It began with the first question asked by a Hofstra College student who wanted to know what either would do to ensure that future grads like him will have jobs.
Romney responded that (all quotes paraphrased) “We’ll have to make a college education more affordable for all, and I’ll do this through growth of the Pell Grant program.” The problem, of course, is that it’s the federal government’s existing subsidization of college loans through programs like the Pell Grant that reduce the incentives for colleges and universities to lower tuition costs. And then in promoting a boost in Pell Grant funding, Romney’s calling for more of the same whereby the feds take money from one set of American hands, and place those funds in the hands of others. On the street this would be called theft, but when politicians propose it, it’s “compassion.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
ON ENERGY:
Romney perhaps drew blood for pointing out that a gallon of gas in Nasssau was $1.84 when Obama entered office, and now it’s $4. Obama drew blood in return with his reminder that gasoline was relatively cheap when he entered office precisely because the U.S. economy was collapsing under Republican policies that Romney would supposedly like to revive. Of course neither made the obvious point that gasoline is only expensive insofar as the Obama dollar is very cheap; Obama failing to make that point for obvious reasons, Romney failing to make it because his economic advisers such as Greg Mankiw actually support the Treasury and Fed’s so far successful, and economy wrecking efforts to debase the greenback.
Gingrich would have crushed Obama. Sigh.
Good grief. John Tamny should take a look at the real wrold and real choices we face. BS on saying neither deserves to win. Romney deserves to win — and to win by a wide marging. Pell Grants can go to hell later.
ON CAPITAL GAINS TAXES:
Obama then asserted that Romney thinks economic growth can only occur if capital gains taxes on the rich are maintained at their present rate of 15%.
Romney should have answered him in the affirmative, that capital gains taxes are a cost placed on investment, that if you want more jobs you need more investment, and that the job-maximizing capital gains rate is zero, but instead he repeated for seemingly the 6th time his platitudinous line about how “I know what it takes to create jobs, and my five point plan will get us there.”
Those listening to the debate on the radio probably thought they were listening to a 4th grade debate, as opposed to a faceoff between two men vying to lead the richest, most important nation on earth. Seriously, we used to be a serious country with serious leaders.
ON TAX CUTS:
Notable here was that the questioner pointed out the good in the Romney tax plan (20% across the board cuts for all earners); this something Romney has so far been reluctant to do given his odd and frustrating desire to not appear to support a reduction in the price of work for the top 1% in this country whose economic achievements improve all of our lives on a daily basis.
Instead, Romney went out of his way yet again to oddly brag that the top 5% would still account for 60% of federal revenues (and you thought Obama was a socialist), while all the benefits would come to middle earners whose tax savings by virtue of them being middle earners can’t move the investment dial that leads to job creation.
After that, Romney’s implicit message to middle income types with designs on making it into the 1% is essentially “If you have the temerity to achieve so much that you enter the 1%, your penalty will be higher taxes.” Romney’s the growth candidate. No seriously, he is.
Obama was naturally no better. He, much like his taxation doppelganger in Romney promised middle class tax relief, though in his case he proposed doing the impossible whereby he would try to fleece top earners even more than at present in order to close the deficit. Lots of luck with that. He then added that “Governor Romney thinks it’s fair and that it grows the economy when people making $20 million a year pay a lower tax rate than those making $50,000. That does not grow the economy.”
Actually, Mr. President, it does grow the economy when you lower the tax burden on the vital few whose exploits elevate our economic existence, not to mention that any income not taxed away by the feds morphs into investment, investment authors all company formation, and through company formation there’s job creation. Economic growth is easy, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to either of the candidates.
The name made it into the debates and Mitt should hammer it all week to the next debate.
This writer watched a different debate.
And in spite of it all he still held his own through the attacks and got his message out.
I thought the write watched the debate carefully and commented on each section of the debate and gave his opinion as to what Romney OUGHT to have said.
John Tamney is a fool.
Meh whatever. Romney hit hard on the economy and that’s what all the polls and focus groups remember and Romney came out ahead.
Romney demolished Obama in the first debate with almost 75 million watching and was fine last night.
Give it a rest.
yea, Romney was about to make some good points and if you watch the crowd they were starting to listen and look interested but then Crowley knowing half of this country has no clue about fast and furious then stepped in and saved her messiah to which Michelle obama then started to clap.
What a friggin farce that was last night and I think Romney did very well considering, he had a crowd from NY which for the most part was not undecided, AK’47’s, How are you different from Bush, women’s pay etc, Crowley then Romney did well and it must have been hard when obama was lying flat out with drilling, gas prices, usual talking points, roads, bridges and schools, hire teachers YAWN
Romney should have stuck to his main campaign issue when he answered that student.
Starting with a simple statement like this. I will make the US economy grow and employment will grow together with the healthy US economy.
coulda shoulda woulda ain’t the real world.
It’s easy to be a back seat driver.
“Gingrich would have crushed Obama. Sigh.”
I agree.
I really miss Newt.
I’m for Romney over Obama every day of the week, but he’s right about Romney’s big-government groveling. Unfortunately it’s the way he governed in MA as well.
I am strongly supporting Gov. Romney, but Tamny is basically on the mark in his comments about the debate. I would have absolutely destroyed Obama on question after question, not argued over the better path to folly.
William Flax
Tamny failed to understand how unbelievably stupid Obama’s statement was. Most FReepers snorted in derision, and Tamny thinks Obama drew blood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.