That was fast: Romney debate remarks in new Obama ad
October 4th, 2012
03:37 PM ET

That was fast: Romney debate remarks in new Obama ad


(CNN) – Less than 24 hours after the first presidential debate, President Barack Obama's re-election campaign released a new television ad Thursday attacking Mitt Romney over his comments about taxes in the Denver showdown.

Obama, citing a study from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, argued Romney's tax policies would cost $5 trillion –a claim Romney forcefully shut down during the debate.


« Previous entry
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. november2012

    ok Mitt said: "repeat you garbage enough and some fools will believe it"... The same old barack/barry obama/sorento...or whoever or what ever he is.

    October 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Howard

      TO ALL YOU OBAMA STOOGES ... Your blind devotion to 'Dear Leader' ... your Fuhrer, is touching ... but it's time for you to leave the Obama cult. Defending Obama, who lost, and who can't loose like a good sport, just makes you ALL look like sore loosers. Obama was given a chance ... and, in the past 4 years, he has nearly destroyed America. NOW, it's time for Barack and Michelle to abdicate their throne, so Mitt Romney can begin repairing the excessive damage caused by Obama's terrible policies. Good bye Barack, Michelle, Nancy, Harry, Jarret, and Axelrod, and all the unelected czars ... and, GOOD RIDDANCE TO YOU ALL ... I'm sure you all will find another way to pick the pockets of hard working Americans !!!

      October 4, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
      • albert

        How true! If only he would make all American take the oath of loyalty to him and give him the Nazi salute, ten the socialist liberals would be happy.

        October 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
      • daniel

        dude u are mean!! even if he has done all of those things give him another chance atleast he is christian like half the country

        October 4, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
      • jean2009

        Obama-Biden 2012!

        October 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • CaliforniaAC

        One thing I got from the debate:
        Romney did a great job of selling Trickle-Down Economics as used by George W. Bush.
        Obama sold the model used by Bill Clinton.
        Real Question should be: Were you better off after 8 years of Clinton or after 8 years of W?
        Clinton left W a balanced budget and a thriving economy.
        W left Obama a huge deficit and an economy in the ditch Obama is still trying to get us out of.

        October 5, 2012 at 3:26 am |
      • CaliforniaAC

        Roney sells the George W Bush economic model best known as Trickle-down economics.
        Obama sells the Clinto Model which raises taxes on the rich.
        Fact: George W's approach busted the balanced budget Clinton left him and the deficit skyrocketed with wars fought , but not paid for.
        Fact: Clinton balanced the budget and left W a booming economy which W quickly squandered and got us into the mess we are in today.
        Question: Were you better off after 8 years of Clinton?
        Question: Were you better off after 8 years of W?

        October 5, 2012 at 3:34 am |
      • Annie

        I can hardly believe that anyone would try to elect the 1% into the White House. I was hoping they had learned something when they voted Big Oil into office.

        October 5, 2012 at 5:34 am |
      • Thomas

        It's funny, he lost wednesday night and that last for Mitt for all of what? 12 hours?

        October 5, 2012 at 7:27 am |
      • John

        Jean – especially Biden – you libs would really be ok with Biden as president? LOL!!!

        October 5, 2012 at 8:43 am |
      • DD

        Why is it that pro Romney supporters feel compelled to resort to name calling and crude statements.....are you that insecure ?

        October 5, 2012 at 11:55 am |
      • Niki

        Well, it took a few hours for the factcheckers to sort out all of Romney's lies and misleading comments.

        October 5, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • rosco

      That is very correct, have you noticed the pansy cant stand up to anyone or anything, oh except the teleprompter, what a joke obambam has become. He did not ans 1 dogone question. His first words were I inherited, excuse after excuse this admin makes want to puke

      Romney 1-win 0 losses
      Obamy 0-wins 1-loss

      October 4, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
      • jean2009

        Have you noticed if you type "Romney Teleprompter" into your Google Image search it brings up over 400,000 photographs of Romney using a teleprompter?

        October 4, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        Interesting Jean,
        When I search for Romney Teleprompter and get about 107,000 results, for Obama Teleprompter I get about 181,000 results. I think the Liberal hate virus has attacked your computer.

        October 5, 2012 at 3:02 am |
      • Archived

        Hey Jay, did you ever think that's because the President of the United States might get his picture taken giving speeches a little more often than a former Governor?

        October 5, 2012 at 11:24 am |
      • Howard


        October 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Boo

      You are so ignorant you don't even see what Robme is doing.....this guy is a lying panderer who doesn't know basic math. Apparently you don't either......what's 2+2?

      October 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  2. misty

    Why no pundit saw the overtly bullying activities by Romney during the debate as a potential for further damage to his already miserable "unlikability" number?

    October 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  3. Borderless

    Dear World,
    If you find yourself in an adversarial position with Obama and want to know how to get the best of him, his supporters have inadvertently offered a few helpful hints:

    Hold your meetings with him at high altitudes.
    Give him no more than four years to prepare for your meetings–apparently he’s a slow study.
    Look him in the eye. He doesn’t do so well when he feels threatened.
    Be angry. He’ll stare at his shoes and mumble in a dignified, presidential way.
    Lie to him. It confuses him.
    Flip-flop. It confuses him.
    Mention Big Bird. It confuses him.

    October 4, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  4. jean2009

    ROMNEY LIED about tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs.
    The Lie:
    Romney: “The idea that we have to see more and more products move from our shores to China is unacceptable.” —Mitt Romney [Detroit News, 9/5/11]

    The Truth:
    Reality-The Washington Post reports that as CEO, Mitt Romney advised companies that were “pioneers” in outsourcing jobs overseas. As governor, Romney drew from the same playbook and outsourced state jobs. And today, Romney has proposed eliminating all taxes on companies’ foreign profits—which would actually encourage companies to send jobs overseas.

    Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would stop tax breaks for American companies that outsource jobs….Senate Bill #3364 July 19, 2012 –The Bring Jobs Home Act.

    Anyone can sound good for a debate if they keep pumping out lies.

    But Obama didn't say it was a special break. He simply said companies could take a deduction if they moved jobs overseas. And on that point, he is right.

    The Joint Committee on Taxation noted in that same letter that "deductions are generally allowed for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer ... in carrying on any trade or business, which includes the relocation of business units."

    Anyone can sound good in a debate, if all the produce is one lie after another.
    Using facts and logic means people have to listen and digest the message.

    October 4, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Frank Marshall Davis

      Obama's already done that, so Romney is too late.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • november2012

      you idiot! Its not a deduction, it is deferred taxes...big difference. The twisting game is on with you goof balls as usual.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Jay in NC

      Jean, do you even read your own post. You quoted Gov. Romney saying that the idea of moving more products from our shores to China is unacceptable. What do you disagree with that?

      I searched for the quote that you gave, the only placed I can find it is on the White House website. The Detroit News site does not have it. Please share a link of the story you are talking about.

      October 5, 2012 at 3:21 am |
      • John

        Jay, I believe that Jean was making the point that Romney says it is "Unacceptable", however in practice he does it a lot.

        I do not think that any American would disagree that we have to slow/stop the exodus of American jobs to other countries.

        October 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
      • jean2009

        Because knowing Romney he will lie a different lie each and every day of the week.

        October 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
  5. Dee

    Everyone is trying to get into the head of the President all the pundits but he is a very smart man and he used a strategy to let Romney hang himself by telling lie after lie, Then the President just listened and took notes to be used as a weapon the next day and in the following debates. He did exactly what he intended to do and it is going to work what better tool to use than the words of Romney.

    The President played it very smart he didn't have to look at Romney everyone is always trying to get into the head of this President and that's why Osama Bin Laden no longer is alive.

    October 4, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Frank Marshall Davis

      Try out reality for a change, it does you no good to live in a fantasy world. Obama is just a man and not the god you obviously worship.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • caramon

      and neither is our Ambassador.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
  6. jean2009

    Block grant funding is like musical chairs—a risky game. You get a fixed number of chairs (block grant funding), regardless of how many people are in the game. Which means when times are bad more people will not be seated. Those are facts.

    When federal funding does not automatically increase in hard times, states can do only three things—
    1.) Cut the number of people who are eligible,
    2.) Cut the assistance each person gets or
    3.) Increase state spending to buy more services…meaning the state then needs to tax more.
    Which means states will cut services, or when times are good redirect their excess grant money for other uses…meaning those funds will not be available when needed, and in the end it will cost the federal government more…not less.

    I would rather trust the federal government to provide the funds when needed, rather than having 50 state governments squandering block grant money when times are good and then come back repeatedly hat-in-hand for a federal bail-out when times are bad.

    Look at the number of times the Federal Government has had to take a state to court for the mismanagement of federal grant monies?
    Wisconsin: The Community Development HUD federal block grants which were misused. Milwaukee County had to repay the federal government for the misuse of block grant funds.

    New Hampshire: Is trying to find a way to cut its state budget by $35 million due to mismanagement of Medicaid block grant funds which they owe back to the Federal Government.

    New York: City of Buffalo-The Office of Housing and Urban Development defies anyone to grasp exactly what is happening to block grants that disappear down Buffalo's black hole:

    Detroit: Double billed the Michigan Human Services Department for $3 million or more, of block grant federal funds.

    Block grants, only opens the door for more greed and fraud…instead of less hogs at the trough the problem is compounded by 50 states worth of State hogs having access. It will be another mismanaged pork laden feeding frenzy.

    Why would states be interested? For one quick cash, as they face the worst fiscal crises in two generations brought on by deregulations of safety nets and unwarranted federal tax cuts, many state leaders such as governors who will be long out of office, and who might be tempted to take the money now and let someone else worry about the future later. Funding for the proposed changes in Medicaid, for example, would be front-loaded, giving states more money in the first years, but would reduce funding for health care coverage in the later years. Guess who suffers when that happens?

    May I say does that remind you of George W. Bush and the mess he left?

    States in the past have been worse at shepherding taxpayer funds from the federal government than the federal government.

    Once block grants free the federal government from its obligations to administer, set standards, and fund social programs, there’s one thing you can count on—fewer chairs and more families cut out of the game. But this is no game…since it will result in . More hunger, more homelessness, more inequality, and more destitute citizens.

    What is a block grant and why is it a bad idea? A block grant is simply a lump sum grant of money Congress sends to states to use for a specific purpose. RESULTS volunteers are quite familiar with block grants because of work with the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which is a pool of money Congress allocates to the states each year designated for child care assistance. While block grants are appropriate in some cases, when it comes to low-income programs like SNAP and Medicaid, they could be disastrous.

    Ironically, one of the criticisms of SNAP by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (D-WI-1) is that its costs have skyrocketed. That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a bad economy. More people lose jobs, their incomes go down, and so they turn to public assistance for help. Because of this, enrollment for safety net programs increases as do the costs of covering more people. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that SNAP kept 4.4 million people out of poverty in 2010. What Chairman Ryan seems to ignore is that, when the economy fully recovers and people's income rises, they no longer need public services and costs once again go down.

    Block granting SNAP and Medicaid would undo these protections. Transforming these guaranteed benefits to a system where benefits are contingent on a fixed amount of funding each year would inevitably result in cuts to enrollment and services. First, block grant funding would likely fail to increase at the same pace, if at all, as food and health care inflation, thus forcing cuts. We’ve seen this happen with welfare when it was block-granted in the 1990s as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF). Second, SNAP and Medicaid would also not be able to adequately respond in economic downturns, as they have recently. When more and more people need services but you have a fixed grant of funding that is unlikely to be increased during a recession, people will be turned away to fend for themselves.

    Finally, states could also be tempted to redirect block grant funds to other areas, putting further strain on already scare resources. As a result, millions of people would fall into poverty with their government essentially abandoning them. This is not the America we want.

    October 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
  7. RSS

    Romney – Great salesman with LIES!

    October 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
  8. jean2009


    You have to remember, Paul Ryan: Has the kind of logic that allows him to be a part of a system that transfers billions in wealth to the richest one percent and engages in useless wars. But when it’s time to stop an economic catastrophe he wants you to know he’s offended. TARP came after a long series of crimes and blunders that led to the financial crisis. But it’s important to remember that the worst decisions of that era — from the repeal of Glass-Steagall to the tax breaks that incentivized financial fraud — all bear Paul Ryan’s stamp of approval.

    YES…he voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall that caused the mortgage mess.

    Despite the hardship in his district, Ryan voted against extending unemployment benefits in November on the pretext that it would add more than “one dime to the deficit.”

    October 4, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • november2012

      the voucher system is a will be able to continue with medicare if you wish....or vote obama in and let a govt moron make your health decisions if you wish...I prefer choices. Obama is a marxist and that just dont work here or anywhere.

      October 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
      • Thomas

        For just once, I would like someone to answer: How is Obama marxist?

        October 5, 2012 at 7:32 am |
      • John

        Obama had an admitted relationship with James Marshall Davis who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
        Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
        Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
        It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

        The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.

        October 5, 2012 at 8:59 am |
      • jean2009

        Thomas You have to remember that to nov2012 anyone who isn't a white sheet fascist is a Marxist.

        October 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • gwillikers

      Really? Aren't you forgetting that Clinton supported and signed Gramm-Leach into law and THAT repealed Glass Steagall act. Bush was not around it was 1999..
      Democrats caused the mortage disaster. You seem to forget that Clinton supported the repeal, as did most Democrats!

      October 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • John

      Jean – if you just ignore the facts of what Romney said he would actually do (provide choice of current and voucher programs) and simply buy the lies from Obama you come of looking like a dumb lib. Given the majority of your posts I know this isn't the case.
      Obama got killed because he spent millions upon millions telling people Romney was something he is not. When people actually saw Romney they realized the lies Obama was telling them about ROmney.

      October 5, 2012 at 8:52 am |
      • Thomas

        Please tell us what Romney really is then. Because I still got no information about his tax plan, jobs plan or plan for healthcare after repealing obamacare.

        October 5, 2012 at 10:42 am |
      • jean2009

        Thomas I have a really long post being held up by the moderator that may answer some questions.
        Now, Ryan and Romney want to double down on doubling down on Medicare. Every senior knows that Medicare will need to be adjusted, but vouchers are not the solution. Vouchers would only make the system for seniors more costly and less secure.
        It would, first, take away the free preventative care and extra prescription drug assistance that the Affordable Care Act added to Medicare. It would also leave current seniors with higher out-of-pocket expenses in the future, because drug providers could go back to charging their higher prices.
        For example…Before Part D Drug Benefit the co-pay through my regular insurance was $28 for a 90 day supply of the generic drug which I had been on for several years. in 2006, under the new Part D that prescription costs me out of pocket $18.00 co-pay for the generic 90 day supply, in 2009 the co-pay deceased to $8.00 generic (same drug same count), and in 2010 to $4.00; today the out-of- pocket co-pay for the same generic and most other Tier 1 & 2 generics for a 90 day supply is $0…yes zero. Now think of what that co-pay would be for a prescription that is maybe a Tier 4 drug if it goes back to the co-pay price before 2009 levels. Today all three of my prescriptions are Tier 2, but that is not the case for many elderly.
        This is not the only problem for a voucher system for those already on SS Medicare their insurance premium costs under a voucher system will increase about $6,400per year, for those just turning 65 their cost will increase $11,000, and those just turning 54 would pay an extra $59,500.
        Increased drug costs and higher Medicare premiums. By repealing the Affordable Care Act, the Romney-Ryan plan would raise health care costs in retirement by $11,000 for the average person who is 65 years old today.
        Increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. A substantial share of Medicaid spending pays for health care costs for Medicare beneficiaries. The Romney-Ryan Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors currently on Medicare who also rely on Medicaid. Unlike the Medicare voucher system that would begin in 2023 the cuts to Medicaid would begin almost immediately.
        For seniors who will become eligible for Medicare after 2022, the financial harm would be even worse.
        This according to studies by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Center for Progress Fund.
        For extra reading I find the article in Forbes “Why Ryan’s Medicare Fantasy Doesn’t Merit Adult Conversation” by Michael Waldholz…who sums up the whole notion as hogwash.
        According to statistics from The Commonwealth Fund research done for CBS News the Romney/Ryan Plan would leave 72 million people uninsured by 2022. This compares to 37 million who will be uninsured under the Affordable Care Act. According to the same research immediately 12 Million more people would be uninsured under the Romney/Ryan plan, than under the Affordable Health Care Act.
        The study also found that Romney's plan would cost Americans more money. People who choose to buy health insurance on their own would pay 14 percent of their income, compared to only 9 percent under the ACA, The Commonwealth Fund stated. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation added that repealing the ACA would cost a federal budget deficit of $109 billion between 2013 and 2022.
        This is why Health Care reform on a national scale is better for America than a voucher system, and also is why we must not elect Romney-Ryan.

        October 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  9. gwillikers

    all thetoric and no substance coupled with a record of total failure; That's why Obama lost.

    October 4, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
  10. Jane Honest

    What good does it do to attack each other. Anyone that has paid attention to Romney's stump speeches prior to the debate knows that he was not honest about his plan and positions last night. This is not a pro-Obama post or a post against Romney. It is an honest assessment of the facts based on my daily review of the stump speeches by each candidate. If Romney was willing to lie about his position on everything (flip-flop), what else is he lying about? Obama did not have a good debate performance but Romney was dishonest and after 8 years of Bush( who I voted for), do we really need more dishonesty on this grand scale? The American people deserve better. They deserve the truth from both sides. I hope that they are wise enough to realize it.

    October 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
  11. Ray E. (Georgia)

    I don't know if the charge of Romney's 5 Trillion Tax Cut is correct or not. Most people don't know or care. It is STILL Jobs people need. The 16 Trillion Dollar Federal Debt will probably dictate what happens in any case. Obama has passed the buck on any pretense of leadership and it showed in the Debate. Obama has been absent too many times when tough decesions were needed. Being President is a job, not a position. At least one person showed up in the debate. Romney most likely is going to be elected.

    October 5, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • Thomas

      Then why was the national debt such a large issue to so many? The problem is that there are no specifics on Romney's tax plan at all and he flat out lied saying that he wouldn't lower taxes on the higher income earners. He has stated a 20% tax reduction across the board as a part of his campaign promise and it is or at least was the first line of his job creation policy on his website. A tax decrease of 20% is a revenue loss of 4.8 trillion dollars over the course of the next few years.

      He has given no specifics and the vague responses he has provided will come no where near making the 4.8 trillion dollar loss of revenue neutral. Nowhere near.

      Can you please explain to me, just why in the world think reducing the taxes on the wealthy/corporations will increase jobs? Every major employer would pocket the savings and you're delusional if you think differently. Think to yourself, when companies are going through rough times, the employees freeze wage increases, yet in almost all companies the higher ups always have a nice juicy bonus check waiting for them. Reducing taxes will not help create new jobs.

      October 5, 2012 at 7:40 am |
    • John

      I doubt that this victory assures Romney's election.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
  12. Kool-Aid Police

    If the polls shift towards Romney expect some real big lies from Obama, he'll do almost anything to keep the perks he's gotten used to.

    October 5, 2012 at 7:08 am |
  13. John

    For all you Obama stooges here is what the Tax Policy Center really said.

    Toppling Off the Fiscal Cliff: Whose Taxes Rise and How Much?

    Roberton Williams, Eric Toder, Donald Marron, Hang Nguyen

    The looming fiscal cliff threatens to boost taxes by more than $500 billion in 2013 when many temporary tax provisions are scheduled to expire. Nearly 90 percent of Americans would pay more tax, primarily because the temporary cut in Social Security taxes and many of the 2001/2003 tax cuts would expire. Low-income households would pay more due to expiration of tax credits in the 2009 stimulus. High-income households would be hit hard by higher tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and dividends and by the new health reform taxes. And marginal tax rates would rise, potentially affecting economic decisions.

    Libs, Just keep following blindly and letting Obama make fools out of you when you repeat his lies.

    October 5, 2012 at 8:48 am |
    • Thomas

      The bush tax cuts are set to expire. Republicans are playing chicken with it and frankly I hope they expire just to see how far they are willing to go to hurt the middle class.

      October 5, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  14. Ray E. (Georgia)

    I get it now. If Obama is re-elected he is going to sit around with his finger up his ass and his mind in netural and the national debt is going to go up another 5 Trillion. If Romney is elected he is going to install sound fiscal discpiline and slow the debt down. That is where Obama is getting the 5 trillion tax cut. OBAMA promised in his first term to cut the deficit in half. And you are calling Romney the liar. And you want to re-elect this half-wit for another 4 years. Surely you are kidding.

    October 5, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Thomas

      I think every politician in history has promised to cut the deficit in half.

      But honestly, why would you worry about the national debt after a recession instead of bolstering the economy with a stimulus? Jobs report good? debt to high! Raise taxes to pay debt? kills jobs!

      You guys are funny.

      October 5, 2012 at 10:51 am |
      • Jay in NC

        Thomas, some of us believe that the debt is adding to the recession. Do you feel comfortable with the thought that each American owes over $53,000. Obama added 6 trill to the debt, or $20,000 per person. Think of what you and your family could have done with that money. Family of 4 = $80,000. Each family could start a biz, pay for school, buy a home,

        I think that most Liberals feel comfortable because they have the mindset that someone else will pay for it. But the truth is we all do, in higher taxes, higher cost of living.


        October 5, 2012 at 11:00 am |
      • Thomas

        Thanks for the reply Jay! Can you give reasons why you feel that the debt is adding to the recession? I feel that lack of tax revenue from bush tax cuts is hurting more than anything.

        October 5, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • Jay in NC

        I think that we are talking about two things. One, the reason for the deficit and two, if the deficit causes or adds to the recession.

        According to the Huffington Post (very Liberal) Bush-Era Tax Cuts Will Cost U.S. Nearly $1 Trillion Over Next Decade.

        That is $1 trillion in 10 years or 100 billion each year. The deficit is $1,600 billion each year. The tax cuts are only 1/16 of the yearly deficient. At 1/16 I fail to see why this is "hurting more than anything."

        The deficit does put a drag on our economy, ie. the recession. Consider this, most Liberals believe that government spending will help the economy, well with more debt means less spending, and therefor less growth. Liberals believe that taxing more to pay down the debt. Well, more taxes means less for biz and people to have to spend, and that means a slower economy.

        October 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • John

      Ray E.,

      I believe that the "Cut in Half 1st term" quote was made pretty early in Obama's campaign. In all fairness, that was before the economy really went to hell. By the time the president took office, the situation was many times worse than when he said that.

      And, before I am condemmed as an "obama worshipping lib", keep in mind that I voted for Bush in his second bid for the white house, because the conservative ideal for growth made more sense than what Kerry was pushing.

      However, now, I just don't see it. The stimulative effects of a tax cut do not add up. From what I can see, most companies have hunkered down because sales of their products/services have declined. Companies are using this time of slow customer based growth to pay down debt. They are not investing in new equipment and people, because they are not getting more customers.

      Think about it, giving them an addition tax break will not make them just go out and hire people. What is the conservative thinking here, do they believe that companies will say "Hey I have this tax break, even though I have NO NEW CUSTOMERS and the workforce that I have right now is enough to handle my current level of business, I am still going to hire people now and squander this new profit"?

      Hiring will not happen just becuase they have more money. They need more customers! Obama's plan, while no where near perfect, will at least create more customers. Put people to work directly, the more people working, the more people buying. That means MORE CUSTOMERS for businesses, and as their customers increase they will need to hire more people to handle the growing business.

      Just my two cents.

      October 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
  15. bombastus

    I have a theory that Obama actually played it rather cagey in the debate and ambushed Romney. He did not provide Romney any fodder for his ads and Obama staid away from the 47% issue, the ill-timed post-Libya Romney press conferences, and the $700B medicare hocus pocus that Romney is trying to peddle. Instead he let Romney go on about how he is now a middle of the roader after running to the right to get nominated. The flip-flopping ad opportunities are endless not to mention some outright lies. In the long run Obama may have just been letting Romney put a noose around his own neck and by not attacking him, Obama avoided any nasty confrontation that would turn people off. Obama is a smart guy. He knows what he's doing. The public will forget this debate in a few days especially now that the job numbers are pretty good. The Obama steamroller will get back on track by the middle of next week.

    October 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
  16. Whydontyoustop

    If you dont like what is going in the country for those that are typing and complaining about this and that...No need to keep going back and forth...Get up and run for President in 2016....

    October 5, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  17. 2020


    Romney is a pathetic liar, period.

    He denied in front tof 50M people that he has no plan of cutting 5T whcih he has been preaching for 18 months. Come on, We are not all walking dead to take in his lies.

    A real man with a spine will never say something like he did.

    He denied he pushed out 47% of the country? he cares for 100%? that liar doesn't even funny. That 47% include you, stupid.

    For anyone to take in Romney words, your next 4 years are doomed.

    October 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Ray E. (Georgia)

      Well 2020,
      We will just have to see won't we? The best comment I heard of was from James Carvelle. Obama thought he was just going to have a po;ite conversation but Romney brought a Chainsaw. Guess who Bill, Hillary, and Carvelle is going to vote for? The huge mess in Wahington didn't just appear overnight and didn't start in the Bush Adminstration and won't be fixed anytime soon. But Romney is the better choice. You vote your way. I've been down too many roads to buy a Pig-in-a-Poke.

      October 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  18. leukevent

    The truth will out! Great youtube video! IN MITTS OWN WORDS! Every member of the voting public should watch this! Mitt Romney is everything you hate about politics!

    "He'll Say Whatever You Want Him to Say.. . .
    . . . Just for the Chance to Live in That White House!"

    October 8, 2012 at 9:36 pm |