2012 Debates

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by electriclite

Yeah, but the way colleges handle that demand with professors is they reduced the amount of tenured professors and hire a large amount of adjuncts. There's one college I know of that one campus only has 5 tenured professors and the rest are all adjunct.

Just saying if that was the case. Regardless it all ties into supply/demand.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Those specific instances still fall under the 'supply demand' part of what I said. Professors demand more pay because the demand for them increases. The amount of college students have risen dramatically over the past 50+ years above the amount of professors & schools that get produced. If you had less students then lawsuits would be less. Technology 'demand', 'demand' for higher pensions, etc. Its still supply & demand. If there was little/no demand then the costs wouldn't be as high.

I do not think you know what supply and demand means. Teachers demands do not figure into supply and demand. Right now, there we have more trained teachers not teaching then ever in the history of the USA. That means there is a heavy supply. Hence, demand is down. If teachers demand more pay, the schools can turn around and say they can find other teachers for less money and they would be right. All around the country teachers are in danger of being laid off and being laid off. Teacher pay if set up through their unions contracts. Classroom size is larger than ever before too.

All those others things mentioned have nothing to do with demand. What does the cost of a computer or a programmer have to do with supply and demand? Nothing. The supply side of out of work people is still much higher than the demand. As for the hardware, the supply is also high since the economy sucks. In order to sell and stay in business, most companies have cut profits to sell more. Completely debunks the supply demand equation.

[creekin111]

You're missing the point. If you're talking about public school teachers government does not play by the same rules of supply and demand as private entities like Colleges and Universities do.

If you artificially flood a specific market with tons of money to buy a product, that said product won't increase in price?

If I have a lemonade stand and I know that the mayor of my town is gonna give everyone a $5 voucher a day to buy my lemonade so you can ONLY USE THAT MONEY TO BUY LEMONADE, don't you think I'm going to raise my price and take advantage of your free money? I know I would.

2) Are you under the impression that federal loans are the only form of government aid to students? Also, do you think the impact from said market flooding happens overnight?

American University in the late 90s, the tuition was around $18,000 - $20,000 per year. Just a little over ten years later, it's $36,000. It's a fine school. It's not THAT good.

Think about it. If you consistently give people free money (or extremely low interest rate loans) and tell them that said money must be directed towards a specific industry, you are flooding said industry with capital beyond it's market value. Knowing that students are now subsidized by the government, schools can raise their rates far beyond what the market would otherwise demand. As the subsidies increase so do the rates? Why do you think tuition costs over the last 30 years have skyrocketed FAR above and beyond the rate of inflation? Are today's teachers just that much better?



People will pay for lots of things. People pay for cars, food, movies, clothes. Prices in most industries either drop as it becomes easier/cheaper to make said product or they keep pace with inflation and that has been the case for most industries including eduction and medicine since the dawn of our republic. Yet those two specific industries have seen their prices over the last 30 and 40 years respectively skyrocket FAR beyond the rate of inflation.

[Gilpesh]

Originally Posted by SkyNet

I have always been a fan of a flat tax, it just makes sense... if you make $20, you get taxed 20% if you make $20 Billion, you get taxed 20%... i dont get why that is so complicated... can someone explain it to me??

I will take this job of correcting your misconceptions about flat taxes.

So you say someone makes $20 will pay the same as someone with $20 billion.... which is your mistake. 20% of just $20 is a lot more than 20% of $20 billion. Because costs are still the same for both people. The guy making practically nothing already spends most of his paycheck to just survive whereas the guy making an obscene amount can't hope to spend that much unless he wants to buy a country. And adding an unfair tax burden on to the poor man while he is not benefitting nearly as much from society as the rich man is, would be a death sentence.

Also a flat tax would not sort out the deductions mess in the most constructive way possible as deductions also benefit the poor. You wouldn't cut an arm off to remove a splinter would you? This is why the IRS needs funding as any dollar spent on them leads to more dollars coming in.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Gilpesh

I will take this job of correcting your misconceptions about flat taxes.

So you say someone makes $20 will pay the same as someone with $20 billion.... which is your mistake. 20% of just $20 is a lot more than 20% of $20 billion. Because costs are still the same for both people. The guy making practically nothing already spends most of his paycheck to just survive whereas the guy making an obscene amount can't hope to spend that much unless he wants to buy a country. And adding an unfair tax burden on to the poor man while he is not benefitting nearly as much from society as the rich man is, would be a death sentence.

Also a flat tax would not sort out the deductions mess in the most constructive way possible as deductions also benefit the poor. You wouldn't cut an arm off to remove a splinter would you? This is why the IRS needs funding as any dollar spent on them leads to more dollars coming in.

How is it unfair if its equal? How is someone making more automatically mean someone else is making equally less? How is the economy a finite pie? Just because someone isn't going to spend their money that means they should have it taken away from them by force? Some higher tax advocates want top earners to part with 40% of their income. Some want 45%. Some 50%. Some 70%. Some 90%. How have you arrived at whatever number you desire? What is the concrete reasoning behind it? Or was the number simply plucked out of think air because it sounded nice?

What logic do we use to set the limits on this? If we're comfortable with a system in which just under half of the population pays no income tax, a portion pays 10%, another portion pays 15%, etc ......, and the top portion pays 40% - if we think it's equitable for a group to pay at 4X the rate of another group while almost half don't even have to pay that - then are we comfortable with a system in which one group pays 75% while others pay 10% and over half don't pay income taxes? How about a system where the top 10% pay income taxes at whatever rate is necessary for the government to balance it's budget and everyone else pays no income tax - is that fair?

What logic do you use - what decision rules do you apply to determine what is fair? And if the only rule is that you'll allow the rich to keep just enough of their earnings to keep the economy growing at a rate that the electorate desires, is my contention that property rights are under assault really so far off base?

Plainly put, what property right should individuals have? What should constrain government with respect to people's property?

I believe in a flat rate tax. I think that it's fair. I also think it makes everyone invested in the government and equally concerned about spending.

If you believe in assistance for the poor then you should believe in negative income taxes. Pick a number for the standard deduction. If you make above that number pay a percentage time the difference between your earnings and the deduction. If you make less, receive a subsidy in the amount of the difference between the deduction and your earnings times the rate. This would be the most efficient way to deliver assistance to the poor. It should replace a number of federal programs (each with their own overhead).

The tax system should be simplified. People who choose to buy homes shouldn't receive a benefit over people who choose to (or have to) rent. The tax code shouldn't be used so that Uncle Sam can give a cookie to all the good little drones who live the way he wants them to.

People want what someone else has, so they use force (government) to take it. That's pretty much exactly what progressive taxation is. The only reasons I've ever heard to justify this are a very vague argument that the rich benefit exponentially more from government (although no one can ever get at all specific about this one), or because they can.

My point in asking the question is not to get a mathematical answer, but rather a philosophical one. From the founding of the Republic, we've agreed that it is important to protect the rights of people who are in the minority. I happen to consider property an important right. Again, if nine people want my money, or 99 people want it, or 99 million people want it, it doesn't give them a right to it in my opinion. Now I recognize that there are people who don't believe in property rights. Supporters of the president and the current Republican congressional leadership may well be among them. If you are, then you shouldn't get so testy when people use terms like "socialism" and "assault on property rights."

I'm just really trying to figure out how a bunch of people who generally seem pretty decent think about this issue? When generally likable people advocate doing something that you find morally wrong, it makes you want to ask them why they think that way?

[Gilpesh]

That's a lot of strawman and misrepresentations. Hell, you've even quoted that damn lie about almost half not paying income taxes. Which is hilarious given your property rights tirades. Those people don't pay FEDERAL income taxes because they are literally too poor. You want them paying more? And you're talking about others supporting morally wrong things and not respecting property rights? Hah.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Gilpesh

That's a lot of strawman and misrepresentations. Hell, you've even quoted that damn lie about almost half not paying income taxes. Which is hilarious given your property rights tirades. Those people don't pay FEDERAL income taxes because they are literally too poor. You want them paying more? And you're talking about others supporting morally wrong things and not respecting property rights? Hah.

Sorry you feel that way but with all due respect I'm not continuing this conversation down to this level.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by electriclite

Its not cherry picked. Before the Tax Policy Center decided to examine Romney's tax plan, his campaign was all for it and described the TPC as an independent 3rd party evaluator. Since Romney's tax plan stresses revenue neutrality, and Romney hasn't specified exactly what deductions he would do away with, the institute had to come with various scenarios where different kinds of deductions were done away with. After all these scenarios were played out they roughly all came to the same conclusion.

I can copy and paste articles too. http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-rom...6#.UHINlVHAG7s

Originally Posted by electriclite

Considering Dubya is on the record as of March/April of 2002 as not having Bin Laden listed as "priority" I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that last part.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

I should have been more clear, his policies of going to fight terrorism and transforming the military to better deal with asymmetric warfare and urban combat as well as increasing the use of special forces to combat terrorism. He also took the fight to countries harboring terrorists such as the Taliban government in Afghanistan which was another change, although I can admit Iraq was a huge blunder.

[Big Bird]

I didn't like it because of his remark about me and his threat to cut my funding.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Big Bird

I didn't like it because of his remark about me and his threat to cut my funding.

sell some commercials and you will be just fine.

[Gordon]

Eh not worth it.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

I can copy and paste articles too. http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-rom...6#.UHINlVHAG7s

That is a newspaper editorial, which depending on where they get their information from can't be taken as independent research. Romney actually claimed that there were 5 reports that backed up his tax plan. However, under some scrutiny the majority of those studies didn't hold up against some of the studies done by the Tax Policy Center.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-his-tax-plan/


Also, that article you provided states that one of the ways Romney can find money for his plan is that if he repeals Obamacare (which I have doubts he'll actually do) it'll free up $29 billion. What it doesn't mention is that repealing the law would actually cost this country $100 BILLION over the next 10 years according to the CBO.

http://ivn.us/editors-blog/2012/07/2...e-the-deficit/

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

I should have been more clear, his policies of going to fight terrorism and transforming the military to better deal with asymmetric warfare and urban combat as well as increasing the use of special forces to combat terrorism. He also took the fight to countries harboring terrorists such as the Taliban government in Afghanistan which was another change, although I can admit Iraq was a huge blunder.

That's a very general example compared to the very specific fact that the Iraq war diverted attention and funds away from Afghanistan and severely undercut the specific search mission for Bin Laden in Afghanistan by our military.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by electriclite

That is a newspaper editorial, which depending on where they get their information from can't be taken as independent research. Romney actually claimed that there were 5 reports that backed up his tax plan. However, under some scrutiny the majority of those studies didn't hold up against some of the studies done by the Tax Policy Center.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_653485.html

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_653485.html

Thunderstorm, that's the internet arm of a right leaning publication. Added to that in the first sentence they describe the Brookings Institute as a "center-left" which is really just scrapping the bottom of the barrel when you're crafting a counter-attack editorial. That's already suspect, especially when you take into effect that the institute gets painted liberal or conservative depending on what day of the week it is.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. We can't just be teaching our children shit like "math" and "letters" without also making sure we convince our kids to chug mountain dew and eat cocoa puffs; it's called economics, and it's a totally objective social science: it says your free "teaching the children" shit has got to go so that we can pay to reign extrajudicial death from the sky without congressional oversight and oh yeah sometimes against US citizens but it's totally cool because there's this thing called the constitution that I totally love and these are two completely reconcilable views because hey look over there.

Boo fucking who. My heart bleeds that a child should have to be forced to watch a commercial on PBS. I question what your values in life

[Gordon]

Eh not worth it.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Gordon

So I take it by questioning my pro-education and anti-murder values you're pro-murder and anti-education? Makes sense; that's certainly not irreconcilable with your other views.

Not publically funding PBS has zero to do with education and everything to do with economics. Some people might point straight to certain types of commercials, but they can control who purchases time. It can be ads from educational companies. But I tend to think forward, not negatively like others.

You do not know many of my views. If you know about all the views I have posted on here you might want find a better way to spend your free time.

I am against the death sentences.
I am for abortion or at least the right to choose.
I am for more affordable education and medical needs.


The only free teaching your child needs like done by the parents. Oh yeah, that is anti big government. We can't have parents teaching their own kids. That would be terrible.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Not publically funding PBS has zero to do with education and everything to do with economics. Some people might point straight to certain types of commercials, but they can control who purchases time. It can be ads from educational companies. But I tend to think forward, not negatively like others.

You do not know many of my views. If you know about all the views I have posted on here you might want find a better way to spend your free time.

I am against the death sentences.
I am for abortion or at least the right to choose.
I am for more affordable education and medical needs.


The only free teaching your child needs like done by the parents. Oh yeah, that is anti big government. We can't have parents teaching their own kids. That would be terrible.

Can we all just agree that if we're not seeing funding for PBS and NPR bursting out at us in this infographic, that maybe Big Bird is not the the driving force behind our borrowing from China?



http://yeeeeee.com/imagebank/wallstatsdatlarge.jpg

[Gordon]

Eh not worth it.

[creekin111]

One of the biggest things that get me angry about spending is people are always like "instead of spending here we should spend there instead" or "instead of cutting here would should cut there instead".

How about this for a novel, crazy, insane, ludicrous, out-of-this-world concept... ok... get ready... how about... WE CUT BOTH AND DON'T SPEND ON BOTH?!



Woah! I know I just like blew everyone's mind and everything. The fact we can't even agree to cut frivolous programs like public television just think if we actually tried to cut programs that are less frivolous. Just proves the fact that nothing ever really gets cut in government. At best its a shell game.

[JoBlo]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Boo fucking who. My heart bleeds that a child should have to be forced to watch a commercial on PBS. I question what your values in life

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! This is not a mature way to debate themes with others. You will be removed from this forum is this continues. DEBATE THE POINTS. If you're putting down other members, you lost the debate a long time ago.

[someguy]

so any comments about paul ryan getting bitchslapped tonight?

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by someguy

so any comments about paul ryan getting bitchslapped tonight?

I'm more interested in who are being surveyed in these polls that conclude Ryan won the debate

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I'm more interested in who are being surveyed in these polls that conclude Ryan won the debate

Well, that was one poll by CNN. It's been widely panned at this point and all other polls indicate a big win for Biden.

[creekin111]

Not that Ryan is any better but Biden is garbage. He interrupted him 82 times in 40 minutes.

[SkyNet]

They both interrupted. Perhaps Biden interrupted once or twice more, but they were both interrupting each other. Thank god the moderator woman was not a push over like the PBS dude!

But, Ryan is a proven liar, well, telling falsities, whether it is blatant lies or simply he doesn't know the facts, he has shown that he says whatever... in that regard Biden had every right to laugh at what he was saying when some of the things he was saying were simple "Malarky" as Biden said!

I still dont agree with taxing the rich more than everyone else simply cuz "They can afford it".. they work hard for their money, they deserve to have that money and not be punished for their success.

But the role of Abortion came up and Biden said exactly what I was looking for.. I will not force MY religion down everyone else's throat. Those are MY beliefs not everyone's! That is key to me... you can feel free to have whatever religion you want, but dont tell me I have to abide by your beliefs when those arent the beliefs I have. And I dont get how Republicans, whose big platform is "Less govt" wants the govt telling people they cant have abortions?!?! It makes no sense and is a big contradiction in their platform.

Biden came into the debate last night knowing that he had to be a bit more aggressive because of how laid back and nice Obama was. Obama had many opportunities to "Get" Romney, but never did. Biden had to come in and make sure the people watching knew that Ryan was full of shit (When he was full of shit, granted that was not all the time)

The next Presidential Debate will be interesting on Tuesday, to see if Obama comes out on the attack.

[Bourne101]

Watched a few minutes of it during a commercial break of the Yankees/Orioles game. It's about the only coverage of the campaigns that I have seen thus far and it was the usual bullshit. Ryan bashing Obama for making promises he can't keep and then proceeding to make promises that he more than likely won't keep. Biden and his "In Scranton..." bullshit. I thought I was watching a sequel to The Campaign, only funnier. All that was missing was a heart monitor for Biden and a juice box for Ryan.

Ultimately, the position of VP is about as useless as the tits on a nun, so I don't give a shit what either of them have to say. The only debates that really matter are those between Romney and Obama, and even those don't really matter because we all know that Obama is going to win.

[creekin111]

I can understand the liberals being happy with Biden's feistiness, but I do think some people live in a message board bubble where they have come to not only accept over the top rudeness and spiteful aggression, but to prefer that way of communicating. It's fine on the internet, but in the real world, people don't like rude behavior and when they watch a debate, they like to, well, you know, hear what the debate participants are saying.

I think Biden won the debate, but I'm willing to bet that the reason the polling is so close is because a lot of people were not so comfortable with Biden's behavior. You can be strong and assertive without being rude. IMHO.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by creekin111

I can understand the liberals being happy with Biden's feistiness, but I do think some people live in a message board bubble where they have come to not only accept over the top rudeness and spiteful aggression, but to prefer that way of communicating. It's fine on the internet, but in the real world, people don't like rude behavior and when they watch a debate, they like to, well, you know, hear what the debate participants are saying.

That right there has been the theory behind Obama's "polite" performance in the first debate. That real aggression, while preferred among the base, tends to turn off the still up-for-grabs voters. In fact, after that debate some polls stated that Obama's numbers among independent/swing voters went up a a couple points in his favor.

Originally Posted by creekin111

I think Biden won the debate, but I'm willing to bet that the reason the polling is so close is because a lot of people were not so comfortable with Biden's behavior. You can be strong and assertive without being rude. IMHO.

If the aforementioned theory is to be taken as fact, then I think the goal behind Biden's aggression was to re-energize and shore up the base. Like Bourne said and Teddy Roosevelt will back up "The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit", so Biden can get away with far more than Obama can in a debate. Obama's performance has to be a lot more nuanced, which leaves a very large margin to err in.

I doubt we'll see anything like Biden's performance in next week's debate, but Obama definitely needs tear down every statement by Romney, instead of leaving that to Politifact... and they also need Martha Raddatz to moderate. Cause if you ask me who won the debates last night, it was her.

[Preston_79]

"When a wise man debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no quiet and peace." Proverbs 29:9

We get taught from a very young age to show respect, not interrupt, and so forth, but as soon as you become an adult that all goes out the window.

I have a very good friend who will start shaking his head, rolling his eyes, laughing, interrupting, if he disagrees with you, and to him it's totally okay, because he feels that the other person is dead wrong. This behavior pisses me off to no end. It's sad to see some encourage this and respect it as an acceptable way for intelligent people to debate.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally Posted by Preston_79

"When a wise man debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no quiet and peace." Proverbs 29:9

Are you implying what I think you're implying?

[Preston_79]

Originally Posted by Squid Vicious

Are you implying what I think you're implying?

I think both Ryan and Biden are intelligent individuals, and both have wisdom. Politics haven't polarized me so much that I can't give credit where it's due.

[Roy Batty]

I've never been enthusiastic about Presidential Debates. However, seeing Biden vs. Ryan was rather amusing because Biden's attitude just gave the democrats that edge of not being push overs after Obama's debacle last week. I don't think either candidate was rude, stepping on your opponents toes seems typical these days so I don't see why this is alarming to some, and I think the moderator was excellent as well. The main highlights to me were the abortion, social security, and taxation topics because it definitely showed there is a noticeable difference in ideological fundamentals between the two sides.

[QUENTIN]

On matters of foreign policy, as always, the two teams attempted to one-up each other on who can be more monstrous or how best to slaughter innocent children en masse as well as who can show greater fealty to Israel. "Should we starve Iranian civilians or bomb them?" being the crux of that issue. The debate was certainly more entertaining and marginally less vapid than the first presidential debate though. As for Biden's "inappropriate" tone:

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh

I've never thought much of Joe Biden. But man, did he get it right in last night's debate, and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts. What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are criticizing Biden's dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.

But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, "Come back when you're serious."

The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.

The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney's 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC's Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:

Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn't have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

"We want to have bipartisan agreements?" This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, "That'd be a first for a Republican congress." Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.

I'm convinced Raddatz wouldn't have pounced on Ryan if he hadn't trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we've all been living, Mars? It's one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn't followed politics that much and doesn't know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:

So now the ball is in Ryan's court. The answer he gives is astounding:

Three things about this answer:

1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz's yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – "Lower taxes by 20 percent" – and then they'll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

So then, after that, there's this exchange.

Raddatz did exactly the right thing. She asked a yes-or-no question, had a politician try to run the lamest kind of game on her – and when he was done, she called him on it, coming right back to the question and translating for viewers: "No specifics."

Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president – for president! – promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for. Forget being battered by the press, he and his little sidekick Ryan should both be tossed off the playing field for even trying something like that. This race for the White House, this isn't some frat prank. This is serious. This is for grownups, for God's sake.

If you're going to offer an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without explaining how it's getting paid for, hell, why stop there? Why not just offer everyone over 18 a 1965 Mustang? Why not promise every child a Zagnut and an Xbox, or compatible mates for every lonely single person?

Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can't report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.

The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that most of the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.

The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.

I've never been a Joe Biden fan. After four years, I'm not the biggest Barack Obama fan, either (and I'll get into why on that score later). But they're at least credible as big-league politicians. So much of the Romney/Ryan plan is so absurdly junior league, it's so far off-Broadway, it's practically in New Jersey.

Paul Ryan, a leader in the most aggressively and mindlessly partisan Congress in history, preaching bipartisanship? A private-equity parasite, Mitt Romney, who wants to enact a massive tax cut and pay for it without touching his own personal fortune-guaranteeing deduction, the carried-interest tax break – which keeps his own taxes below 15 percent despite incomes above $20 million?

The Romney/Ryan platform makes sense, and is not laughable, in only one context: if you're a multi-millionaire and you recognize that this is the only way to sell your agenda to mass audiences. But if you're not one of those rooting gazillionaires, you should laugh, you should roll your eyes, and it doesn't matter if you're the Vice President or an ABC reporter or a toll operator. You should laugh, because this stuff is a joke, and we shouldn't take it seriously.

[Preston_79]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

I've never been enthusiastic about Presidential Debates. However, seeing Biden vs. Ryan was rather amusing because Biden's attitude just gave the democrats that edge of not being push overs after Obama's debacle last week. I don't think either candidate was rude, stepping on your opponents toes seems typical these days so I don't see why this is alarming to some, and I think the moderator was excellent as well. The main highlights to me were the abortion, social security, and taxation topics because it definitely showed there is a noticeable difference in ideological fundamentals between the two sides.

I don't think interrupting people, and some of the body language I saw speaks to not being a push over. You're right about it being typical these days though, so it shouldn't be alarming. Like most people that will actually vote, my mind was made up a while ago. These people being polled giving their opinion on the debate, aren't all voters, just people who watch television. Makes me wonder what kind of edge you actually get from being named the victor of one of these debates. I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not sweating over his last debate.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

On matters of foreign policy, as always, the two teams attempted to one-up each other on who can be more monstrous or how best to slaughter innocent children en masse as well as who can show greater fealty to Israel. "Should we starve Iranian civilians or bomb them?" being the crux of that issue. The debate was certainly more entertaining and marginally less vapid than the first presidential debate though. As for Biden's "inappropriate" tone:

The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh

He couldn't even give a straight answer to Chris Wallace on Fox News when asked the same question. That speaks enough for itself.

"The middle class is broken down by the side of the road, and Paul Ryan is driving up in a black windowless van and saying, 'Get in.'. Don't ask "Where are we going?" It would take him too long to explain ... Just get in. And it puts the lotion on its body." -- Stephen Colbert

[creekin111]

[Erroneous]

That was some debate. Not really Presidental though. Play nice boys

[The Postmaster General]

My favorite part is reading the Rose Garden speech and trying to imagine the context where Obama would bring up acts of terror, not tying the concept to Benghazi, but just dropping it in randomly like he's Mix Master Mike.

[Badbird]

These debate formats are tiresome and boring. I want to see a Tag-Team style debate: Obama/Biden vs Romney/Ryan - each one can tag in and out on various questions. One candidate might even distract the moderator so his partner can bring a foreign object into the ring (smash a teleprompter across his opponent's back, for instance).

Ratings gold.