Patterico's Pontifications

What do you think Jim Lehrer’s topics will be?

You mean other than the pleasant aftertaste Obama leaves in his mouth?

Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/3/2012 @ 5:54 pm

The Commission-like the 5 Families?

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:02 pm

Where are we going? Down the toilet at this rate…

ChimpZilla (4cbcb0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:06 pm

FACTS AND FIGURES! GET TO THE POINT! SOB STORIES ARE NOT GOING TO CUT IT!

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:07 pm

Romney started out not well.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:08 pm

Lehrer said his questions will focus on the following: “3 segments on the economy and 1 each on healthcare, the role of government, and governing,” with an emphasis on differences between the candidates and the choice facing Americans.

Sounds like something Romney can do well on.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:09 pm

We’ve made progress in education? Really?

ChimpZilla (4cbcb0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:09 pm

Romney’s advisors said one of the goals is for Romney to talk about specific stories and how Americans have been affected, because they want to humanize him and show he can relate to people.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate? WTF?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

Barack’s talking in a “normal” mid America accent tonight.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

he should ask Obama why he did not pursue an economic policy similar to that which Warren Harding used to end the depression of 1920.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

The feds have no real role in schools. But the fantasy of Daddy Government solving everything goes on. Low tuition doesn’t correlate with student loan programs that transfer wealth from middle class families to college presidents and endowments.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

Haven’t we been improving the educational system since G. Washington? And how can you keep tuition low when the government controls student loans?

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

disagree, nk. That was a fairly strong opening statement for Romney. Talk about real people and lay out what you’ll do that differs from the current regime.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:11 pm

Quoting Biden: Good.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:12 pm

Romney was very good here.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:13 pm

Obama lies about Romney’s tax plans. Shocka!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:13 pm

Obama looks uncomfortable when confronted with the oil and natural gas statements…

ChimpZilla (4cbcb0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:14 pm

Romney body blow on Obama energy lies. BOOM!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:14 pm

Obama is scuffling here. NO TELEPROMPTER.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:15 pm

Obama cut taxes for middle classes by $3,600? When?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:15 pm

Lower taxes by $3600 while INCOME drops by almost $5000…yeah, they can sure buy that new car…

ChimpZilla (4cbcb0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:15 pm

Romney’s gonna lose. Voice counts. How did he get laryngitis? And where are his visuals when he’s talking numbers to make his point? Obama’s winning. Where’s Ryan?

Second whisperer for the Republican candidate. McCain/Romney, whiskey voices.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:18 pm

Like that Romney jumped Lehrer about the premise of the question. Very strong, getting better.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:18 pm

How’s it looking now, nk?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:20 pm

reading, your post #23, you’re in your cups again, nk.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:20 pm

Obama is unfocused and repeating himself. EDUCATION!

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:21 pm

It’s meter and reasonsance. And magic worfds(sic). Whose gonna read the transcript? Obama’s better.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:21 pm

Uh oh. President cool is getting steamed.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:22 pm

That’s SPQR and daleyrocks, Haiku. That’s discuss that slander another time.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:23 pm

That’s discuss that slander another time.

Yes, apparently so…

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:24 pm

$5 TRILLION, IT’S $5 TRILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!

FROM MY BUTT!!!!!!!!!!!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:24 pm

Teleprompter, STAT!

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:25 pm

Deficit is not debt, Jim.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:26 pm

“That’s SPQR and daleyrocks, Haiku. That’s discuss that slander another time.”

nk – What are you talking about. More smirnoff.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:27 pm

Stephen Green has a great description of Obama: ““Obama is doing his best I’M NOT PEEVISH face. If the all-caps didn’t give it away, the face is not entirely convincing.” “

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:27 pm

nk, I don’t think I’ve slandered you recently.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:28 pm

Let’s see.

Romney talks too fast. He is a CEO talking to a board of VPs. Obama is talking to people.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:29 pm

Blaming Bush. Will it work. I doubt it. Bush, Bush, Bush.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:29 pm

keep an eye on 0bama’s right eye and cheek… you’ll know he’s losing it when you see the tic.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:30 pm

nk, you can’t be serious.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:30 pm

I think this more open, free wheeling format is vastly superior to past debates. Both candidates are talking about the same basic subject in each segment and both have much more flexibility to make their own points and respond to points/errors of their opponent. The moderator is managing, but is not dominating the debate.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:32 pm

corporate jets!!!!!!

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:35 pm

Let’s kill the oil industry and the corporate jet industry so the economy will grow. Yeaarrgh!

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:35 pm

$4 billion of oil company tax breaks! That will eliminate the deficit! BRILLIANT!!!!!!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:36 pm

how bout those gas prices, mister prez?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:36 pm

Romney and Obama are the issue, and Obama is kicking ass.

What is it with the whispery voice and reading the spreadsheet?

Now it’s good, “If you’re reelected we’ll have a $3trillion debt.”

Obama stutters. Lehrer gives Obama a break.

Romney gets fire. Keep it up.

Obama goes cliche. Romney, hit the gas pedal.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:36 pm

I have two kids in college. I’m awaiting that help, Mr. President.

Nevermind, I would rather the country not be in the hole it’s in.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:36 pm

Big Zero’s got big plans that apparently weren’t good enough to be employed at any point during the last 4 years.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:37 pm

Time to scare the old folk!

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:37 pm

Romney seems almost bemused by this rambling nonsense. Obama is so used to being told he’s wonderful he assumes he is.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:38 pm

iowahawkblog “What the hell is this? I was specifically told I’d be debating John Kerry.” – Inside Obama’s head

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:38 pm

RameshPonnuru Love Jim Lehrer. His interventions aren’t achieving anything and he should quit them.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:39 pm

You don’t pick winners and losers, You pick the losers.I

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

OUCH.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:39 pm

JonahNRO When does Mitt take out a bag with “Obama’s lunch” written on it and start eating out of it?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:39 pm

Obama seems full of tics to me.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:40 pm

Great response about the states, Mitt.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:40 pm

robertcostaNRO Romney’s strength, broadly speaking, is that he’s speaking in paragraphs. Fluid. At ease. Knows the details.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:40 pm

Social Security is sound!!! What?!!

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:40 pm

Obama is talking about his grandmother’s SS.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:41 pm

michellemalkin HAHAHAHA. Romney burns Obama on green jobs boondoggle record. “You don’t just pick winners & losers. You pick losers.” #DenverDebate

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:41 pm

A bank vice president depended on SSI and Medicare. REALLY?

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:42 pm

I think the President may have just had a Gerald Ford moment and he repeats it!

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:42 pm

Which rhymes with BS.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:43 pm

Mitt makes sense

The Emperor (6f94ec) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:43 pm

Think Progress talking points are not helping the president.

Many of his attacks are based on the false premise of a $5 trillion Romney tax cut.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:44 pm

“Social security is structurally sound.”
In other news, up is down, red is green, outhouses are rosegardens.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:46 pm

Scaring the old folks is apparently a winning strategy.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:46 pm

“I have become fond of this term, ObamaCare.”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:47 pm

How many ticks until lyme disease sets in.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:48 pm

PROFIT IS EVIL!

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:49 pm

Good move by Romney to bring in Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff as the author of Ryan’s Medicare fix, given that Obama is trying to present himself as the second coming of Bill Clinton.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:49 pm

O. does not understand insurance. He has never understood insurance of any kind or how it works.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:49 pm

There is no way that private insurers have higher administrative costs than the government. That is unpossible.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:50 pm

JonahNRO The great secret about Obama is that, unlike Clinton (and Romney) he’s not a wonk. He’s always been a faux policy guy. It’s showing.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:50 pm

RichLowry romney just excellent on medicare

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:50 pm

JimPethokoukis Obama Intrade contract dropping like a 2000 Internet stock after a “sell” by Mary Meeker

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:51 pm

I like Lehrer’s open-ended question about the role of government.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:51 pm

TheFix Ouchy, RT @adamnagourney “Who is more absent from the stage? Jim Leher or President Obama. Close call.”

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:52 pm

Really getting sick of the govt shill that’s “moderating,” smackin Romney and passively peeping at his Leader for going off topic or running over.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:52 pm

JonahNRO Maybe Obama can turn this around by just reverting to his 2004 DNC Keynote speech?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:52 pm

I wish Romney would be as angry as I am.

WatcherOne (171f1d) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:52 pm

robertcostaNRO One word I think of Obama’s turn (so far): flat. One word about Romney’s: engaged.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:53 pm

dodd and frank should be in jail

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:53 pm

Too bad he wouldn’t let Romney answer it.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:53 pm

Disgusting. Just watching Der Messiah smirk at his ally do it.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:53 pm

mitt running out of ammunition…

The Emperor (6f94ec) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:53 pm

Banks did bad things allowed by Democratic legislation, Mr President.

And once again, the President is arguing against something that Romney did not say.

There were plenty of regulations, the oversight was missing because of influential Dem congresspeople.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:55 pm

TheFix Obama giving Romney the death stare. #debates

complete with the right eye spasms!

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:56 pm

Read here.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:56 pm

OT, he voted against what he said he was for;

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

narciso (ee31f1) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:56 pm

Mitt was excellent on asking why 5 big banks are sacrosanct when local and regional banks are going out of business right and left.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:58 pm

Obama is smiling and he should. He has the look, the voice, he has the talking points, has the language, has the voice. He is winning this debate.

Romney is McCain with better hair. Stutters more than Obama, his VP is not at pretty as Sarah’s.

But… is that Romney’s real voice or the microphones? I doubt it, but I can wish.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:58 pm

Its pretty obvious that Obama can’t find anything to say to defend his own actions. Failure made manifest.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 6:59 pm

Creepy death stare. He really DOES look like the JOKER! I wonder what people would think watching this without sound.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:00 pm

My god the Empty Suit(tm) blathers meaninglessly for his conclusion.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:00 pm

Obama: ObamaCare says insurance companies “can’t jerk you around.”

Really?

“I had 5 seconds before you interrupted me.”

Testy tonight, isn’t he?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:00 pm

“he interupted me” Whaaaah! Only I can interupt! Break out the crayons.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:01 pm

nk hasn’t mentioned the crease in his pants yet, at least.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:01 pm

If you have insurance you can keep your insurance. You lie!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:02 pm

Obama is so ashamed he can’t look up when he is not speaking.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:02 pm

iowahawkblog I heard about something like this that happened between Sonny Barger and a mouthy guy from the Mongols in Oakland in ’65. Not pretty.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:03 pm

Kinda shocked Romney has almost made Romneycare a strength as bipartisan cooperative legislation.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:03 pm

How did they get the Cryptkeeper to be the moderator? Jim Lehrer needs a spray tan.

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:03 pm

I don’t see this debate changing anything for either candidates..

The Emperor (6f94ec) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:03 pm

If he was advised to look less arrogant, Obama failed to follow that advice. But knowing the tone-deaf twits in the White House, his conduct was probably intentional – someone thought Al Gore’s march across the stage was a great idea.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:03 pm

Romney directs his responses to the President, completely engaged. President Obama responds for the most part, focused on Jim Lehr.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

JimPethokoukis Obama is at the level of a good MSNBC guest. Knows talking points well. Romney playing at different, higher level right now

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

Romney tells the truth and the President says some board knows best.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

Obama really reaching to blame Obamacare on Republicans.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

When you have an uninterensting subject, the better speaker wins. Obama is the better speaker, by far.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

robertcostaNRO “Before he interrupted me.” Revealing line. Romney has gotten under Obama’s skin.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:04 pm

Cryptkeeper…I KNEW I recognized him from somewhere else.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:06 pm

Health care premiums have not gone up at slowest rate in 50 years over last two. Obama lies again.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:06 pm

Oh, so there are death panels. Romney tells the truth, the President agrees and Palin is vindicated.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:06 pm

nk, what debate are you watching?

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:07 pm

iowahawkblog 23 minutes to go. At this point Romney can probably get a Jimmy John’s, and feed it to Ann’s dressage horse while kicking a dog.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:07 pm

If Romney can get under his skin a lil more there’ll be a meltdown.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:08 pm

“Obamacare” Obama says it.

Is Romney’s voice really that terrible, or is it sabotage? It is a serious question.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:08 pm

Why does obama look at jim and get time?

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:08 pm

just a thought… perhaps King Barry VII could wear earth tones next debate?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:09 pm

“this board can’t make decisions as to what treatment people can have.” WHAT!?

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:09 pm

jimgeraghty Obama was convinced he was prepared for this debate the way he was convinced he was prepared to be president.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:09 pm

Jim Lehrer isn’t even the most talented person in his family. Tom Lehrer holla!

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:09 pm

Fox News Channel, 71 Comcast.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:09 pm

The Bamster is being schooled by a man who knows business

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:10 pm

jimgeraghty Easy to overstate impact of a debate, but did anyone in the MSM expect Romney to be this good, or Obama this shaky & meandering?

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:10 pm

I could swear I saw him wink at Jim.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:10 pm

Unfocused, babbling, shrieking is not very attractive in a leader. Obama is a mess.

I can honestly say I was voting for Romney as the lesser evil. But I want to vote for this guy on stage this evening.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:11 pm

Romney really listens and looks engaged. Half the time Obama looks like he’s bored and just did a hit of “choom.”

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:11 pm

I’m thinking we can stick a fork in this one and see how Stephanopolicpucskidy spins it to declare Obama the winner.

Unless Romney wets his pants and stabs Lehrer in the eye with a pen.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:11 pm

Obama still strikes me as the only President I can remember who really was not interested in the job at all.

Obama wants to be President but he does not want to do the President’s work or be responsible for the office of President.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:13 pm

Betcha BO wishes he was back in Vegas

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:13 pm

Romney’s voice sounds perfectly fine to me. The president’s sounds increasingly grating and tense. I’d much rather listen to Mitt for the next 4 years.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:13 pm

Jim looks like a cauliflower with peppercorn eyes. That’s meant as a compliment.

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:13 pm

Obama talking about “keeping people safe” OPENING! Go off topic and nail him!

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:14 pm

This Mitt Romney person exudes excitement and eagerness about what he could do as president over the next four years.

Food stamp exudes ennui.

Me each time I go to bed I
pray like Aretha Franklin.

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:14 pm

Come on, Mitt. Take it to him on this subject.

WatcherOne (171f1d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:14 pm

Wow, Lincoln said that? Missed it in Bartletts.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:15 pm

Everything is the future for this clown; nothing about the mess we live in currently

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:15 pm

Posted on the wrong thread, but:

Ooh, ooh, the President killed Obama and free enterprise and Lincoln. Well that sways my vote.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:16 pm

jimgeraghty Obama’s first thought is how to keep Americans safe. Except for the ones who kept asking for more security in Benghazi, apparently.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:17 pm

I’m not watching the debate, but I am fascinated by reading everyone’s realtime reaction to it.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:17 pm

Plus listening to food stamp is boring like waiting for your number to be called at the dmv.

Plus the moderator looks like my dead grandma.

Plus I have tasty bbq in the fridge.

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:17 pm

When Aretha prays she needs somebody to help her get back on her feet, Mr. Happyfeet. Those are unfortunate circumstances.

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:17 pm

Looking very good for Romney. Jmo 🙂

Joseph D (beda48) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:18 pm

iowahawkblog “Hi, Jay-Z? Next president here. R-Money. How much for that 18 foot tower of champagne? I’ll be needing it.” Romney, on big 80’s cell phone

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:18 pm

I don’t think Lehrer knows how to control the flow of a debate for real disclosures. Just saying.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:18 pm

“president believes in a trickle down government that thinks it can do a better job than a free people pursuing their dreams” excellent Mitt!!!!

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:19 pm

TheFix Good golly. Obama looks very annoyed/unhappy. #debates

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:19 pm

Uh oh, the President goes all wonky on education.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:19 pm

UH

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:20 pm

Line of the night so far — Romney: Obama doesn’t pick winners and losers. He just picks the losers.

Also, was Lehrer feeding Obama talking points from time to time? Looked like it.

Joseph D (beda48) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:20 pm

Romney is increasingly fluid. Obama is increasingly “uh…uh…uh…” and blathering. Nice.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:20 pm

Obama won this debate, handsdown. Romney was Dukakis. Versus not Bush 41 but Reagan 40.

Where did the whispery voice come from? Where was even a bit of animation? Asking too much for emotion?

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:20 pm

Romney’s rambling is the best impression of Captain Queeg caught on camera since Bogie.

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:21 pm

OMG, the President just said we cut out private enterprise so that the government can control student loans. Romney needs to pounce on this one.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:21 pm

When they do split screen they seem to be showing Obama taller…slightly, but…

WatcherOne (171f1d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:21 pm

Angelo… yer killin’ me!

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:22 pm

I’m no fan of Romney, but there is no question he won the debate.

We should all do what little we can to get Obama out of office. Romney may very well turn out to be a good president, but even if he’s merely an average one, that is a huge improvement.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:22 pm

I like the little timers on CNN. Obama has so far hogged five minutes of extra time, 38:40 to 33:30.

Andrew (522219) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:22 pm

we all knew Romney is good at debates.. he is doing good job of defining himself.

The Emperor (6f94ec) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:23 pm

put the crack pipe down and quickly back away, nk!

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:23 pm

well, the debate is not over yet, but so far, I think he’s done very well.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:23 pm

NK and DCSCA are watching something else than the rest us.

If it was a fight it would be stopped.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:23 pm

DCSCA is channeling Lucy Ramirez again.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:23 pm

Romney is a pro. Obama sounds like the guy in the dorm “what ifing” after a few hits of mexican weed

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:24 pm

Big fumble by Romney on education, but not that it matters now.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:24 pm

Nice smackdown, Mitt!

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:24 pm

The moment I wake up, (comma) before I put on my makeup
I say a little prayer for Mitt

(cause of how he wants to make the economy rape stop)

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:24 pm

Obama: “The [health care] board can’t make decisions about what treatments are allowed. That’s specifically prohibited in the [ObamaCare] law.”

FactCheck.org agrees with Obama:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act explicitly states that IPAB “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (See page 490.) The board’s recommendations, furthermore, will go before Congress, where they can be replaced with alternative cuts or rejected outright by a three-fifths majority.

But the American Assn of Neuro Surgeons (via Cato) spots an important distinction:

A study released by the Cato Institute entitled “The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature” shows how scary the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is for seniors. The IPAB, which was created by the health reform legislation and may, in fact, be unconstitutional, is a board of 15 unelected and largely unaccountable government bureaucrats whose primary purpose is to cut Medicare spending and threatens the ability of Congress to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to the health care they need, when they need it.

According to the paper, “When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB ‘proposal’ requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.”

The board’s decisions automatically become law and courts will have no power to challenge the IPAB’s decisions.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:25 pm

“what would you do about [partisan gridlock]”?

It’s questions like this that make me miss Newt’s attacking premises in questions.

Why is the gridlock built into our government something that needs to be fixed? Why must all politicians force consensus? If we can’t agree on something… maybe the government should stay out of it?

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:26 pm

Obama pitifully short on facts, long on talking points.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:26 pm

Romney may be busy on his first day, but Obama will be able to make his tee time.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:26 pm

Romney may be busy on his first day, but Obama will be able to make his tee time.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:26 pm

And Jim can’t resist interrupting Romney yet again.

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:26 pm

Obama ended war in Iraq!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:27 pm

Holy crap! Obama’s bragging about his foreign policy!

23eagle (7f99f0) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:27 pm

Obama loses because Mitt Romney sketches a better picture of an American Life. I denounce myself.

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:27 pm

What plan? Obama hasn’t had a budget since he’s been in office.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:27 pm

I love popcorn with butter and browned shallots. More popcorn please. Good Job Mitt.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:28 pm

How did Obama rein in Wallstree?

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:28 pm

Obama – Romney can’t say no to more extreme elements of Republican party!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:28 pm

UHUH

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:28 pm

DRJ, seems pretty clearly unconstitutional, such schemes of setting up regulations without legislative guidance, with Congressional “veto”, have been found unconstitutional in the past. And the supermajority requirement for rejection is blatantly unconstitutional.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:29 pm

I too am so effing grateful to the “University of Denver” I can’t even tell you

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:29 pm

RameshPonnuru Kept thinking Romney’s streak had to end. Hasn’t lost an exchange yet.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:29 pm

Romney extreme? That’s hilarious. Democrats just love their brazen lies.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

_____________________________________________

nk, what debate are you watching?

Apparently it’s the one where Barry doesn’t say anything about his sons if he had any sons, and avoids mentioning his daughters who are sent to special schools to get away from all riff-raff that limousine liberals like Michelle and her old man are supposedly so compassionate about and tolerant of.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Obama looks at Lehrer, not the camera. Very odd.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Obama says sometimes a president has to be strong and say no, and gives as an example that he was willing to say no to his Republican opponents in Congress. He followed that by criticizing Romney for not being willing to say no to his Republican supporters.

Apparently Obama didn’t do that well on the SAT or the LSAT because he obviously doesn’t get how analogies work.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Obama should have a yard sale.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Obama way down on InTrade

Joseph D (beda48) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Kept his promise? He’s delusional.

WatcherOne (171f1d) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

So, the government needs to channel our ability. Thanks, Mr. President. I would rather decline.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

LarrySabato Somehow I doubt the Obamas are going to fondly remember this 90 mins of their 20th anniversary.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/timeAndSalesForm.jsp?contractId=743474&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com

Joseph D (beda48) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

Obama fought everyday for the middle class, except when he was on vacation or golf course.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

jimgeraghty Obama: “I think this was a terrific debate.” PolitiFact: PANTS ON FIRE

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:30 pm

iowahawkblog Watch every last media clown blame Lehrer for Obama losing this debate.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:31 pm

Jim Lehrer was the only other guy in the lights during a debate to decide the most powerful person on earth. His mom and dad must be proud.

Birdbath (716828) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:31 pm

JimPethokoukis I think Obama forgot to tell America how he would end the Long Recession #whereshisplan

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:32 pm

Meghan’s coward daddy was ready for his ovaltine and a nappynap at this point

Mitt sounds like he’s gonna have trouble sleeping tonight

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:33 pm

Well, Romney won this one. Don’t listen to the upcoming spin.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:33 pm

Sorry, just gotta see MSNBC spin right now….its kinda like porn

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:33 pm

those weirdo mitt boys from brazil are freaky

happyfeet (36c0f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:36 pm

Rachel says BO didn’t directly attack Mitt, whereas Mitt kept attacking BO

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:36 pm

Obama was struggling to keep the petulant look hidden but it peeked through quite regularly.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:36 pm

Where’s 0bama’s cutman? The guy has lost a lot of blood.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:36 pm

Jeez! Schultz just gave it to Mitt!

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:37 pm

iowahawkblog Poor guy, couldn’t get it up on his anniversary.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:37 pm

You should watch MSNBC. They commentators agree that Obama was awful. They seem absolutely devastated.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:37 pm

#209 Great metaphor

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:38 pm

DRJ, I can’t tune in MSNBC, I’d double their viewership.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:38 pm

This is America, chicos. Style wins over substance.

And, just beteen the two of us, neither has any substance. Just two narcissistic a*****, tired of working, who want to be President.

One (Obama) tries.

Otra dia, mismo mierda. How much, do you wonder, were McCain, Palin, Romney, and Ryan paid to be the losers of the elections?

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:38 pm

Rachel says BO didn’t directly attack Mitt, whereas Mitt kept attacking BO

Comment by Angelo

This is part of that ‘which one is the incumbent’ thing. Of course the challenger is going to criticize the incumbent’s record. If he didn’t, why run in the first place?

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:38 pm

This was a good night for Romney…

The Emperor (6f94ec) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:38 pm

Then there’s the senile, demented Rev Al….call the vet and put him down

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:39 pm

Chrissy is having a hissy fit…as usual

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:41 pm

Chris Matthews is talking about Obama now. The tingle is gone.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:41 pm

Maybe Romney gained something from the crucible of the GOP primary. I don’t think Obama was remotely as prepared. It’s not like Mccain ever handled a debate this well.

But it’s not like Romney went in there like a rabid dog. Obama simply looked less sincere and positive.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:42 pm

Perception is reality, nk, and the media’s perception is that Romney won.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:42 pm

Sorry nk. Obamacare was passed without specifics. Romney said he had a plan and talked about what he would do.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:42 pm

Andrew Sullivan has just written that Obama has likely lost the election tonight.

He was hyper-critical of Obama’s performance from start to finish, and thought Romney wiped the floor with him.

shipwreckedcrew (4ae072) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:42 pm

Romney was prepared and Obama wasn’t. He debates the way he governs.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:43 pm

Obama is the President for all the people who never got spanked as kids and got trophies for participating.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:47 pm

Obama is going to make one hell of a lame lame duck

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:47 pm

After tonight, just wait, the anti-Mormon big knives are coming out.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

The conservative websites, including this one, seem to be loading very slow, possibly due to heavy traffic. Is this an indication the online community thinks Romney won?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

DRJ or angeleno,

link for the Maddow and Matthews commentary, pls.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

Better put some ice on that thing Barky.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

We make fun of TOTUS, the Teleprompter of the Untied(sic) States. Tell me Romney did better. Better voice? Better reasonance? Better body language? Fiewer Ahmm’s, Ermm’s, Ahh’s?

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

Dana,

I’ll link it if I see it online but I was watching it live on TV.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:48 pm

Dana….on TV, sorry

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:49 pm

Palace Guard Media will try to spin this as a win for Obama, but attempts will be laugh out loud funny.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:49 pm

Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill devastated and very very confuzzled as to why Obama didn’t hang Romney over the “47%” quote.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:50 pm

Obama’s gotta change the narrative tomorrow.

I’m cynical finally, after years of being naive, so I’ll be waiting with popcorn to see what major news story erupts tomorrow.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:51 pm

Glenn Reynolds sums up: “Yeah, Romney was channeling Reagan. Obama was channeling Biden.”

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:52 pm

Rev Al saying Mitt blatantly lied…..gads what a mutant

Angelo (dfd7cf) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:52 pm

I still get the feeling that Obama wants the self-validation of reelection but dreads having to do the job any longer … well, its not like he’s shown any interest in doing it for the last four years. I think he got bored having to do the President’s job around summer of 2009.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:55 pm

Romney was prepared and Obama wasn’t. He debates the way he governs.

Comment by DRJ — 10/3/2012 @ 7:43 pm

and

Obama is the President for all the people who never got spanked as kids and got trophies for participating.

Comment by SPQR — 10/3/2012 @ 7:47 pm

Back-to-back outstanding comments by two of the most insightful minds here.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:56 pm

Dana,

Ed Schultz a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

“I’m disappointed in the president…. I think the president created a big problem for himself tonight. I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I thought he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight.”

Newsbusters adds this Chris Matthews’ quote:

“Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate, was it? It just wasn’t. It didn’t mention all the key fighting points of this campaign. […] I don’t know what he was doing out there, he had his head down, he was enduring the debate.”

Bill Maher’s tweet:

“i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”

DemocraticUnderground turned off access to one of its debate thread. This is the message you get if you click on a link to Rachel Maddow’s reaction:

“We’re sorry, due to extremely high traffic levels the administrators of this site have turned off access for non-registered members.

Click here to login or create an account”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:57 pm

I still get the feeling that Obama wants the self-validation of reelection but dreads having to do the job any longer … well, its not like he’s shown any interest in doing it for the last four years. I think he got bored having to do the President’s job around summer of 2009.

Nailed it, SPQR. What Obama really likes (and is, alas, pretty damn good at) is campaigning — going to rallies, being cheered wildly, giving high-falutin’ rhetoric devoid of substance — not the nitty-gritty of governing. Four more years would absolutely bore him to death.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 7:59 pm

Looks like BHO lost about 2% on Intrade over the debate, FWIW.

gp (0c542c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:01 pm

Thanks, DRJ.

Chris Matthew’s “he was enduring the debate” nails it. Obama was enduring it because he had to. He wasn’t fighting for his principles, he wasn’t defending his policies, he had nothing fresh and game changing to offer, he just seemed to endure because he was expected to. And it seemed like he knew it.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:01 pm

A debate is like a bottle of wine, or like a woman. You do not know if they are good until morning.

Romney sucked.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:01 pm

Baby, baby… where did that tingle go?

BuzzFeedBen Chris Matthews Unloads On Obama: “Where Was Obama Tonight…What Was He Doing?”

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:01 pm

OK, nk, keep beating that drum.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:02 pm

Presidential Debate Credits:

The Empty Suit(tm) was provided by Valerie Jarrett.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:02 pm

Professor Jcobson has broken out the John Phillip Sousa again!

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:03 pm

______________________________________________

Andrew Sullivan has just written that Obama has likely lost the election tonight.

From Sullivan’s lips to God’s ears.

The very fact that we as a nation have had to deal with someone of the nature and background of Barack Obama — that we (meaning a majority of the electorate in 2008) allowed it in the first place — is one of those moments we’ll never live down.

The bar was so greatly lowered in November 2008 that something as bad or much worse than “goddamn America” in the US presidency remains a very good possibility forever after in this nation’s future. IOW, whatever “shining city on the hill” innocence we might have had prior to 2008 is gone forever. Or we’re like a famous mathematician who on one fateful occasion thinks it’s okay to conclude that 2-plus-2 equals 6, or 3, or 9.5.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:03 pm

After tonight, just wait, the anti-Mormon big knives are coming out.

Comment by Ag80

They better not make a mean movie!

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:05 pm

nk-you suck

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:05 pm

Poor Lehrer, under the bus. Expect his retirement announcement soon.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:05 pm

Romney sucked.

Comment by nk — 10/3/2012

He’s not exactly my first choice, and apparently not yours, but he is the only path to ending the Obama administration. I think it’s obvious he would be an improvement.

Enthusiasm means something on election day.

The debate shows one of these people is asking America to settle for this situation we’re in, and one is willing to try to fix it.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:06 pm

Didn’t sound like Lehrer was helping Obama with the answers?

AZ Bob (1c9631) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:06 pm

BHO at his debate after-action-review tonite: “But they wouldn’t let me be clear!”

gp (0c542c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:06 pm

The Obama campaign’s response:

Stephanie Cutter, deputy manager of the Obama campaign, said that Mitt Romney won on “preparation” and “style,” but added that Mitt Romney got “testy” when he had to defend his own policies in an interview with CNN after the debate in Denver. Cutter said President Obama accomplished his goal of having a conversation with the American people.

On Romney’s demeanor, Cutter said: “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:07 pm

Wish Romey had hit Obama as the latter talked about all these tax loopholes and subsidies and whatnot that he ‘would’ close.. you’ve been President four years, Mr. President, why haven’t you already done these things?

Obama seemed at times like he was running for a first term, not a second.

Brian (c1167b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:09 pm

Romney won Debate One. Even Andrew Sullivan is crying. Schadenfreude.

EBL (f71fce) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:10 pm

“It’s like I’ve always said. I suck and I suck hard*”

– Barack Hussein 0bama

*ed. note: editorial license taken on second sentence.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:10 pm

Will Obama throw John Kerry under the bus?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:11 pm

I didn’t watch it, but PowerLine says it was a resounding Romney win. Hewitt, while partisan I think he will call a bad performance when he sees one, was astounded at how bad Obama looked and thought Romney was solid.

nk, are you messin’ with our brains, or did you mix up who was who? Did your daughter watch, and what did she say (no, mine did not).

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:12 pm

The shocked looks on MSNBC flacks’ faces when they realized that the Empty Suit(tm) is an empty suit are just hilarious.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:13 pm

Re: this comment from Stephanie Cutter that I linked above:

On Romney’s demeanor, Cutter said: “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”

I don’t know what she means by this. Any ideas?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:13 pm

Romney stripped Obama of his pride.
Well Done Mitt.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:15 pm

#251, I fear you are correct. The evidence that the bar has been lowered is in the fact that there is still any question as to whether BHO will win a second term.

Diffus (161d8d) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:15 pm

Sounds like everyone on the planet is declaring Romney the decisive winner except for David Axelrod, Baghdad Bob, Michelle Obama, and…nk.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:15 pm

Clint’s chair would have performed better than Obama.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:16 pm

I don’t know what she means by this. Any ideas?

If I said something like that, it would be a compliment to Romney’s being a proper gentleman. I find it hard to believe that was what she meant, maybe she was trying to say Romney is boring.

It sounds like the one did a better job when he was talking with Clint.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:17 pm

Obama claims he inherited a $trillion deficit. And I want to stick my boot up his ass for repeating that lie.

George (012711) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:17 pm

DRJ, the White House has decided to blame Lehrer for Obama’s failures.

And that should not surprise, Obama has been blaming others for his non-performance all of his life.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:18 pm

mg, you hacked my computer 30 seconds before I got it out.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:18 pm

“that Lehrer b*tch set me up”

– Barry Hussein Milhous 0bama

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:18 pm

David Plouffe,

I think Romney came across as a little testy.

The rest of his comment was just silliness.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:19 pm

Obama keeps claiming his path is that of Bill Clinton’s. When did Bill Clinton have $trillion deficits? Another lie.

George (012711) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:19 pm

Okay, I think you’re right, SPQR. The post-debate spin at MSNBC is channeling Cutter’s comment — that, like a moderator, Romney focused the discussion on topics he chose and dominated the debate.

Doesn’t every good debater try to do that?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:19 pm

And I want to stick my boot up his ass for repeating that lie.
Comment by George — 10/3/2012 @ 8:17 pm

Choice commentary at PowerLine over the amount of falsehood in the recently released videos.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:19 pm

I don’t know what she means by this. Any ideas?

Politico is reading it as a swipe at Jim Lehr,

Cutter’s decision to place blame on Lehrer may signal an acknowledgment by the Obama campaign that the president did not perform as well as his challenger, Mitt Romney — which was the general consensus of the media, including the usually pro-Obama MSNBC. (MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz slammed Obama’s performance.)

Many on the left criticized Lehrer for being too silent. He rarely interrupted the candidates when they went over their allotted time, and when he did it was almost always a losting battle. His attempts to control the conversation were so notably nonconfrontational that they became memorialized in a Twitter handle named @SilentJimLehrer.

But Lehrer’s passivity also allowed the two candidates to engage one another, and if Obama did not engage Romney or land any singificant blows, he may have no one to blame but himself. Though it is the moderator’s responsibility to keep time and keep the candidates on topic, it was up to the president — not the moderator — to take on his challenger.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:21 pm

link.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:21 pm

Tom Hayden ‏@TomEHayden

i agree with MSNBC pundits – except Sharpton – that Romney prevailed.

HAHAHAHAHA… HA!!!!

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:23 pm

Thanks, Dana.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:23 pm

A good performmance by Mitt tonight – Here’s hoping he carries it to the next debate.

apod00 (90e4bb) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:24 pm

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Mitt “a little testy” said campaign spokesman for Little Testes.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:24 pm

Shout out to diffus.

Regardless, I can’t wait for the October surprise after this. It should be extraordinarily astonishing and stupid.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:24 pm

Complaining about Jim Lehrer is just sour grapes and in keeping with the boss’ practice of blame shifting.

The one talked about bringing guns to a knife fight, guess it is good talk but no walk.

I’m sure the same people thought Gwen Ifill did a great job back in 2008.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:25 pm

Obama and his campaign going after a P.B.S. star means more dems not going vote. Mitt did well in keeping possible obama voters at home.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:25 pm

______________________________________________

He’s not exactly my first choice.

In my case, the background and history of Romney are interspersed with enough squishy, or “centrist,” qualities, that should he be elected next month, I have to prepare myself for regular bouts of teeth gritting and grinding. But that in itself demonstrates how ideologically extreme a person has to be to favor Obama over Romney.

Even more so when Obama’s background and history are loaded down with some of the most disreputable ultra-liberal qualities in the history of the American presidency. And I’m not even factoring in the less-than-wonderful traits of Obama’s personality, integrity, discipline and time-spent-at-the-office.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:25 pm

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

In my specially selected focus group, 100% of swing voters said, “holy crap, that guy is the president of United States?”

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:26 pm

I never watch MSNBC but am now and amused to hear Maddow refer to Ezra Klein (who will be joining her) as the Truth Squad for tonight…

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:26 pm

iowahawkblog MSNBC performing live version of Downfall parody #MustSeeTV

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:28 pm

Tomorrow’s storyline will be how debates don’t matter.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:28 pm

LarrySabato CNN POLL of voters who watched: 67% say Romney won, 25% Obama. A blowout.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:28 pm

Comment by Dana — 10/3/2012 @ 8:26 pm

Better you than me. be careful, I don’t know if there are permanent deficits in IQ and integrity associated with that behavior.

Good night, David.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:29 pm

Sharpton says Romney should be indicted for lying-and a convicted tax fraudster knows indictments. Good luck with that lefties.

Bugg (642d2d) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:29 pm

I’ll email a screen-grab to Patterico, but if any of you think you can stand it you ought to head over to the LA Times homepage and see to what depths they will go to try to spin this for Obama. Note that the “Fact Checker” goes after four statements by Romney but only one by Obama. Incredible.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:30 pm

JRubinBlogger Clint Eastwood’s empty chair was pretty prescient #debates

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:30 pm

Can’t wait for the Ryan-Biden debate!

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:30 pm

jimgeraghty Maybe the Obama campaign really meant all of that pre-debate lowering of expectations.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:31 pm

JonahNRO Romney should FedEx some apples to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with a note “How do you like these?”

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:32 pm

mg–your comments on this thread have made me very happy this evening. You’ve come a long way baby! 🙂

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:33 pm

How often did 0bama look like a little boy being scolded? I lost count… on account of watching his right eye twitch.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:34 pm

Excellent idea, JVW. I’ll help.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:34 pm

______________________________________________

the White House has decided to blame Lehrer for Obama’s failures.

Sort of in keeping with the way that Obama and his minions keep wanting to point the finger at the filmmaker who posted an anti-Islam video to Youtube.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:34 pm

Dana:

Can’t wait for the Ryan-Biden debate!

LOL.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:35 pm

michellemalkin RT @TheJackOBrien: Worst. Anniversary. Ever.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:35 pm

Great comment at Althouse:

Romney: Here’s my homework!!
Obama: The dog ate it.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:36 pm

wear your rain coat, Dana.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:36 pm

Blame Booosh–blame the anti-Mohammed video–blame Jim Lehrer. It’s all so predictible.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:37 pm

In actual movie, MD, Sean Connery was wrong. The “wop dago bastard” did not bring a knife to a gunfight, he brought a machinegunner to a gunfight.

Language. Violence.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:38 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5jXDvrOu4

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:38 pm

Sort of in keeping with the way that Obama and his minions keep wanting to point the finger at the filmmaker who posted an anti-Islam video to Youtube.

You don’t suppose Jim Lehrer has an outstanding parole violation, do you? If so, I suspect the Denver County Sheriff’s Office will be paying “a visit” to his hotel room at the Brown Palace Hotel late tonight for “an interview.”

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:38 pm

Anyone want to bet that the debate will bump the polls for Obama?

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:38 pm

Obama has never been required to produce, never been required to deliver. And his first reaction to his own failures is to blame others.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:39 pm

My favorite post-debate headline/article at the LA Times:

“Mitt Romney loves Big Bird, will kill funding for him anyway.”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:41 pm

Thanks, Elissa.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:42 pm

Michelle Obama, DNC Convention speech: “Being president,” she said, “doesn’t change who you are, it reveals who you are,” … and it showed.

Romney brought his A game, 0 brought his chair.

htom (412a17) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:43 pm

Mitt Romney loves Big Bird, will kill funding for him anyway.

We’re still fighting the battles from 1995, aren’t we DRJ? Even back then honest liberals acknowledged that if funding were cut for PBS, popular shows like Sesame Street would just get picked up by either network TV or cable. Looks like media liberals are still plugging the idea that if PBS goes, Sesame Street disappears.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:47 pm

Not to be a killjoy but this is just Round One. Obama has successfully lowered the bar but he still has the media, so anything he does in future debates will be considered a victory.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:47 pm

JVW,

That’s so true. Plus, Democrats love to paint the GOP as evil. Killing Big Bird is just another way of saying Republicans are evil.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:49 pm

htom:

Romney brought his A game, 0 brought his chair.

That’s good.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:51 pm

True DRJ, but Mitt seems to be hitting his stride at the proper time.
So I am going to feel happy happy.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:52 pm

Nobody dislikes Obama more than I do.* If I say he did good, it is not a partisan thing. He spoke well, very well, in a very good voice, no more inarticulate than Romney, and nobody cares about the numbers.

*Ok, I think he has a great speaking voice. It’s not like I look at his bootie.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:52 pm

To quote Daniel Day Lewis’s character in There Will Be Blood, Mitt Romney just drank Obama’s milkshake !

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:53 pm

DRJ:

I agree with you because not many people watched this debate and far fewer will watch the rest.

The President needed a home run and he did not get it.

Regardless, the reportage becomes much more important in the following debates because people will not watch and they will depend on what they hear from the media.

Romney did extremely well, so now he has a certain advantage as a serious candidate, but the media will do its best to discount Romney’s win.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:54 pm

You can’t kill big bird until you have fed him cat food.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:55 pm

Here in MN watched Kare11 70% texting Willard won, me included.

Very pleasantly surprised with 10th amendment mention, Education vouchers, free enterprise trumps government, etc. Indies had to have been heartened by his performance.

“You don’t pick winners and losers, just losers”. F*ckinA!

Bachmann gave the GOP response, “President Romney”, Ellison the Dhimmi response, ‘Jugears had more personal anecdotes’.

Brokaw looks like death plus a degree. Axelrod needs a dental hygenist.

Northern MN gets 2 inches of snow tomorrow afternoon.

Yearrgghhhh!

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:56 pm

DRJ, I don’t think Obama’s “lowering” was a success as it would be ridiculous for it to be an intentional tactic. Obama is not served by falling behind in debate expectations. This debate was supposed to be addressing his strongest policy positions and throwing it intentionally would be stupid.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:57 pm

Not even the most partisan left wing kooks are declaring Obama the victor.

Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Peter Beinart, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Piers Morgan,…they all say Romney kicked his butt.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:58 pm

DNC Talking Points: Obama lost the debate because of Lehrer! Lehrer didn’t give Obama Sesame Street questions to answer.

Kaitian (4e478c) — 10/3/2012 @ 8:58 pm

319. “still has the media”.

Well, he has Brian Williams anyway. Nobody else I saw tonight could emote tingling.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:01 pm

SPQR,

I certainly don’t think Obama’s performance was intentionally bad. But I don’t underestimate the media’s ability to spin this as unimportant if he does better in future debates.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:02 pm

Obama has never been required to produce, never been required to deliver. And his first reaction to his own failures is to blame others.

Comment by SPQR

in a nutshell.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:02 pm

Chris Muir weighs in.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:04 pm

327- Hope the snow stays north as I am going hunting in s.w. Mn. in a few days.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:04 pm

@333,

That was pretty much the entire game in 2008. Blame Bush and it worked well and the 53% of the voters fell for it hook line sinker.

Kaitian (4e478c) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:05 pm

Bob Owens tweets: “Some people eat when they get depressed. I hope Michelle put Bo outside for the night. “

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:06 pm

Since No President Has Ever Done This Badly In A Debate, We Have No Idea What It Will Do To Race

– Hugh Hewitt

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:07 pm

DRJ, the problem for Obama is that the next debate will focus on foreign policy, right at the time that we should have a better idea of the Mexican border situation with Fast and Furious, the travails of the EU (which should give Romney an opening to bring up the awful budget mess that Obama has stoked), the fiasco in Benghazi, and the entire unraveling of the Middle East. If Mitt plays his cards right, he can keep Obama on the defensive for the entire evening and get in more zingers.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:07 pm

Ok. Perhaps. Too sweet a voice diminishes credibility.

nk (875f57) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:09 pm

10-1 obama plays golf tomorrow.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:09 pm

BTW… when the candidates were shaking hands after the debate, it looked to me like 0bama told Romney “you won that one”.

Colonel Haiku (4f16f6) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:09 pm

I would not be surprised if Obama’s performance was the result of his own increasing realization that he won’t be reelected. I am of the opinion that Obama lacks stick-to-it character. The next month will be interesting to see if he continues to just phone it in from the golf course.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:10 pm

Comment by JVW — 10/3/2012 @ 9:07 pm

Absolutely, but the key is for Mitt to be ready. Part of being ready is understanding that the media will be ready, too.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:12 pm

SPQR:

The next month will be interesting to see if he continues to just phone it in from the golf course.

Or if Michelle takes a vacation.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:13 pm

It was racist of Romney to talk to Obama that way!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:14 pm

335. Marshall area? Mornings high 30’s, low 40’s. Afternoons, not a lot better. Wind should blow thru by then tho.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:24 pm

DRJ, recall that rumor that there were arrangements being made for a post-term residence in Hawaii for the Obamas? Probably time for Michelle to start looking for the retirement villa. I’d be pleased if she found one in Spain during her vacation there.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:24 pm

Did you ever really buy that the President quit the cigarette habit as he claimed? Somehow I think he’s prolly having a smoke or two tonight.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:26 pm

347- thanks gary. My farm is in Martin county. Near Sherburn.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:29 pm

On a side note, I didn’t realize President Obama appointed Cheryl Saban, wife of the owner of Univision, as U.S. representative to the United Nations one day before his tough interview with them….

Dana (292dcf) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:29 pm

348 – Hawaii has too much pollution now. Let’s buy him out and send him home.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:31 pm

I thought Lehrer did fine, can’t think of another host who’d have done better, maybe Hume.

Lefty’s are all atheists so they’ve no one else to blame.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:32 pm

So I guess chattin’ up the gals on The View didn’t really help prepare you to debate Mitt, huh Mr. Eye Candy?

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:32 pm

______________________________________________

I’d be pleased if she found one in Spain during her vacation there.

Considering the mess that uber-liberals have caused to countries like Greece, I think she and Barack deserve a place in Athens.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:36 pm

gary–I agree with you. I thought Jim Lehrer was professional and for the most part showed them respect and gave them room to maneuver within a broad framework. I liked the format and the absence of silly gotcha questions in this debate.

elissa (e05c64) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:38 pm

Obama has successfully lowered the bar but he still has the media, so anything he does in future debates will be considered a victory.

I dunno, DRJ, looks like no matter how much the bar was lowered, Obama limboed right under it.

CBS News says Romney landed blows on Obama

The Washington Post says Romney won this one

And even Huffington Post gives the nod to Obama.

Chuck Bartowski (a72c35) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:40 pm

Comment by Dana — 10/3/2012 @ 9:29 pm

Dana, it’s worse than you think. NRO (or maybe Commentary) had the back-story. Cheryl Saban’s husband Haim Saban is a very influential Jewish Democrat who had been publicly critical of Obama’s handling of the situation in the Middle East. Suddenly Dear Leader appoints Ms. Saban as the U.N. rep, and not only does Mr. Saban hush up, he starts kicking in money to reelect the President including soft money to pro-Obama PACs. The neutering of Univision is important too, but it is secondary in this matter.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:44 pm

Probably the last debate with this format.

mg (44de53) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:45 pm

However, leave it to Jonathon Chait to say it wasn’t all that big of a win for Romney. At least the Obamabots can hang out there.

Chuck Bartowski (a72c35) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:45 pm

____________________________________________

but if any of you think you can stand it you ought to head over to the LA Times homepage and see to what depths they will go to try to spin this for Obama.

To be fair to them (although they don’t really deserve it, since their partisanship otherwise is so frequent and glaringly obvious, it could sink a ship), their current headlines are:

Romney sharp, steady in first president debate

Romney takes Round 1, by many measures

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:45 pm

But those weren’t the first headlines, Mark. These were the headlines I saw, about an hour after the debate:

Romney defends tax plan; Obama doubts his math — By Paul West and Kathleen Hennessey | 7:19 p.m.

Romney loves Big Bird but will kill his funding

It will be interesting to see what they go with in the print version.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:55 pm

After reading all of nk’s comments, I conclude BHO’s “junk” must looked better during the debate and the nk was smitten by Barry’s continual lifting of his leg: “Oh! Just look at the crease in his pants and imagine where it leads!”

When Tingles Mathews says Barry blew it—–he really blew it. Uh, that’s the debate we’re talking, nk!

earl t (7ba558) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:59 pm

That was an ass whupping.

POTUS was embarassing.

Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/3/2012 @ 9:59 pm

The independents in Frank Luntz’s focus group overwhelmingly favored Romney:

Luntz, who has been in the polling business for at least two decades, says he has never seen such a dramatic shift in opinion as a result of a debate.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:00 pm

Mark — Yeah, I do see that their coverage is “evolving” as their writers have more time to work on their articles after the debate. I wish I had screen-capped the first version of the West & Hennessey article that went up immediately after the end. Obviously much of it was written before the debate began, as the latter part discussed each side’s goals and objectives for the debate and their camps’ attempts to dampen expectations. The first version led off with observations that Romney had been on the attack and Obama had been trying to parry him, but it was pretty much free of any attempt at scoring the debate. A later version then fleshed-out the combativeness of Romney but really did try to assert that Obama had given just as good as he got. This most recent version just adds some post-debate quotes from each side and seems to subtly acknowledge that Romney got the better of the President. It’s probably the version that will be published in the print edition tomorrow. In any case, it is interesting to see the evolution of a story in real-time.

JVW (f5695c) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:00 pm

I think nk is playing us.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:03 pm

365. I know the economy was supposed to be Willard’s wheelhouse but I expected him to be well drilled, that is his forte.

Urkel, OTOH, dunna have one. Like the Chi Sox were a cinch, even tho he can’t name any of ’em.

He’s going to puke it up now that he knows his con doesn’t sell. He’ll have to face his record just the same.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:12 pm

_____________________________________________

But those weren’t the first headlines, Mark.

DRJ, I still recall back in the late 1990s, during the time of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, that apparently one of the people manning the LA Times website before other (perhaps senior and more authoritative) staffers had their input inserted one of the most ludicrously biased headlines and subheadings imaginable. I don’t recall the exact nature of the wording, but it might just as well have been: “Clinton Has Relationship with White House Intern — Most Americans Think It’s Hot, Sexy and Exciting.”

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:13 pm

R.I.P. to R.B. Greaves, writer/singer of “Take A Letter Maria”

Icy (a427f8) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:18 pm

The reports have suggested for days that Obama was bored with debate prep and looking for other things to do. But it seems to me there’s another possibility: What if Obama is so clueless about his abilities that he quit preparing because he thought he was ready?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:18 pm

___________________________________________

In any case, it is interesting to see the evolution of a story in real-time.

JVW, as I mentioned above, there are very dogmatic people in the nooks and crannies of publications like the LA Times, and if they had their way, not only would the MSM remain as biased to the left as it currently is, it would tilt even further over. So much so that it would end up resembling a coast-to-coast version of Mother Jones intertwined with something out of North Korea.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:20 pm

11. (almost off topic)

Comment by Michael Ejercito — 10/3/2012 @ 6:10 pm

he should ask Obama why he did not pursue an economic policy similar to that which Warren Harding used to end the depression of 1920.

“Interesting” write-up at the place you linked to.

Somebody manages to write about it without mentioning the Great Deflation – that prices dropped by more than a third between May 1920 and the beginning or so of 1921. Wholesale prices crashed in May 1920 and consumer prices about December. Of course that mostly preceded the depression – that’s what caused it. Prices completed their drop in half between 1929 and 1932, going back even further than than to what they were before World War I – all the way back to 1911. (There was mild inflation between 1896 and about 1915, most of it by 1900 or 1902, with prices rising by about 50% over that period, but only a cumulative 10% or so in the ten years before 1915, after whch inflation took off with prices more than doubling by 1920. Prices were at historic lows in 1896, at the trough of the 1890’s depression, even lower than in 1751, if you can trust a series extended that far back. But anyway, price rose and dropped and a Dollar was worth in 1915 about what it had been in 1791)

Your writer doesn’t write about any of this, most likely because he doesn’t know anything abut this, and that means he doesn’t know anything at all about what happened.

And Harding did nothing at all to end the 1920-1922 depression. That’s the whole point of that article.. Nobody did, including the Fed, and it ended by itself.. Actually it was about then that the Federal Reserve Board discovered that it could affect interest rates. Which it did through the “Open Market committee”

By the way, in the early 1920s currencies throughout the world collapsed.

If somebody had mentioned that, and somebody else had known what the other person was talking about, the answer would have been, that’s different. That’s Bill Clinton’s whole theme – that this case, of 2008-2012, is different than most postwar recessions.

I might mention one point. By 1920, there was inventory control. Already by 1920, prices did not drop readily. It took a real full fledged Great Depression to get prices to drop some more in the 1929-1932 period. After that, prices never dropped in recessions, although I’m not sure that even by today, theory has caught up. Prices used to drop in economic downturns because of a breakdown in inventory control, and that’s the only reasons prices ever dropped.

That is not to say a price drop cannot occur. It did in 1948 – the inflation that vanished. Inflation was a bog issue in 1948 – it was what the “Do Nothing 80th Congress” was doing nothing about. The statistics came out at the beginning of October and Dewey never knew what hit him.

Prices had just about doubled between 1940 and 1948, then they dropped back by about 5% – and the price drop, as in 1920, caused a recession.

Now what caused inflation to end? Economists have no theory, certainly no consistent one, which is why that too is not written about. Milton Friedman claimed that very low interest rates was tight money.

What happened was that an expansion caused prices to drop! Eventually the curve for production got ahead of the curve for consumption. Inventory control can’t break down for a single company any more – and the last time it really broke down was 1920, and then with difficulty – by the time economists were formulating their theories, that era was over, but they used statistics from the 19th century.

But inventory control can break down economy wide, because that the result of decisions taken by different producers, and eventually the production curve gets more hyperbolic than the consumption curve,

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:22 pm

Cuda: “Barack Obama did not have the answers tonight. And you know why? He didn’t have his buddy the TelePrompter in front of him writing out the answers. He finally had to be candid and rely on his own lack of experience and knowledge about how the economy really works”

Again, the Dhimmis made Shinola Spokesmodel the central cog in their machine figuring they could drive it off others seeming incidental.

Only its teeth of clay stripped clean off.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:22 pm

mg:

True DRJ, but Mitt seems to be hitting his stride at the proper time.
So I am going to feel happy happy.

I’m happy, too, and I’m especially enjoying these Michael Moore tweets.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:26 pm

___________________________________________

And Harding did nothing at all to end the 1920-1922 depression.

It’s possible the person who is citing Warren Harding actually is thinking of Calvin Coolidge, or one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite presidents.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:28 pm

Very likely, DRJ. There seems to be no one who can tell Obama unpleasant truths … or recognize them.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:30 pm

By the way, I noticed how blandly Barack Obama blamed the economic downturn on the Bush tax policies – a pure post hoc ergo propter hoc. (after this, because of this)

(Obama stated both his and Romney’s approaches to tax policy had been tried)

Romney didn’t challenge him: Wait a second, how exactly? How exactly did the Bush tax cuts – or Bush anything – cause the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression?? What’s his theory as to the cause?

At one point he noticed (maybe) that Obama was not talking about conditions in the last 4 years, or about anything Obama had tried.

Obama was talking like this: Now (for the first time?) he’s going to try to do something: Repeat the Clinton tax increases, which he said, worked better than the Bush tax cuts in stimulating economic growth. No explanation – it was pure post hoc ergo propter hoc. And no other examples from history used except the Clinton tax increases and the Bush tax cuts.

Romney never introduced another period of time. He never mentioned, I think, the Reagan tax reform of 1986, although he was proposing to do the same thing. Maybe he didn’t want to remind people that rates were raised later.

He did note that Obama had said, at the end of 2010, that taxes should not be increased because economic growth was slow, and Romney said growth was now even slower. Obama was nodding his head – without giving any sign that it should have any effect on his argument. I guess Obama wanted to say he also didn’t want to raise taxes very much at the beginning of next year.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:32 pm

Mark,

While you’re correct that Coolidge was a hero of Reagan, Thomas Sowell recently stated on Peter Robinson’s show “Uncommon Knowledge” that Harding wisely did “nothing” during that early ’20s economic downturn, enabling the economy to correct itself.

By the way, Amity Schlaes’ long-awaited biography of Coolidge is going to be released this coming February.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:36 pm

The Democrat insistence that raising tax rates increases economic activity is among the most bizarre of their irrational fantasies. There is no respected economist who has any such theory.

But since Obama pushed what few semi-sane economists he had out of the administration many years ago, its no surprise that’s he’s in possession of whacky economic theories.

SPQR (26be8b) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:37 pm

286. Comment by MD in Philly — 10/3/2012 @ 8:25 pm

I’m sure the same people thought Gwen Ifill did a great job back in 2008.

I don’t think Romney realized that Jim Lehrer is no longer anchoring the Newshour. I’m not sure he’s doing anything regularly for PBS.

That’s why Gwen Ifill was perturbed when Jim Lehrer was picked to moderate the debate.

She thought she should have gotten the job.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:38 pm

Mitt Romney also didn’t realize or know that Baack Obama no longer minds the term “Obamacare”

Romney kind of botched up that part of the debate.

He did remember, after initially forgetting, and he remembered after only about 30 seconds or a minute that Barack Obama was indeed proposing changes to Medicare for current recipients.

Unfortunately, he talked only about Obama wanting a price cut, and how that could cause providers to drop out of Medicare, but not about the death panel of medical experts that is to start work in 2017 (although that’s not specifically Medicare)

He never confronted this idea of Medicare being more efficient – having fewer administrative costs. Yes, it has fewer administrative costs, because it just about never questions bills.

Obama talked about how Medicare could deteriorate under a voucher system, if many people left it,
but didn’t seem to know it could deteriorate any other way and Romney never brought up that point I think.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:48 pm

POTUS was high on weed tonight.

Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:53 pm

42. Comment by elissa — 10/3/2012 @ 6:32 pm

I think this more open, free wheeling format is vastly superior to past debates..

This was much more of a debate than most Presidential debates. Not disappointing. Well, not too disappointing.

Jim Lehrer kept telling them they are using up more time than allotted for each segment, but that was good. If they do this again, they should build in this extra time.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 10:56 pm

382. “Romney kind of botched up that part of the debate.”

Nah, it was the one part of the debate that pulled Obie out of his funk. He actually remembered his answers.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:02 pm

SF: “And Harding did nothing at all to end the 1920-1922 depression.”

Comment by Mark — 10/3/2012 @ 10:28 pm

It’s possible the person who is citing Warren Harding actually is thinking of Calvin Coolidge, or one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite presidents.

No, Harding, because this was over by sometime in 1922.

Harding wanted to lift or increase the restrictive quotas enacted in 1921, but someone in Congress convinced him or argued that restricting immigration (effective July 1, 1921) had ended the depression (or that a spurt in immigration had caused it) and so it ould be very bad to allow more immigratiown.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:03 pm

I loved Axelrod’s spiel.

Romany had no specifics for replacing Obamanblecare, no specifics for paying for tax cuts, no specifics for creating jobs, no specifics on spending.

The American public will not opt for prayer flags on the wind.

Not in lieu of mass graves? Really?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:08 pm

380. Comment by SPQR — 10/3/2012 @ 10:37 pm

The Democrat insistence that raising tax rates increases economic activity is among the most bizarre of their irrational fantasies.

It’s pure “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”

Romney offered no alternative explanation of the 1990s economic boom. Even maybe that it was a natural recovery.

They were both doing “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” and they were limiting themselves to very few examples.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the easiest thing to argue when the audience doesn’t know any underlying facts, but it’s deeply fallacious.

There is no respected economist who has any such theory.

The “economist” who says that is Bill Clinton. He may have some theory to explain why, but if so, we don’t get to hear it. But you can count on Bill Clinton to have something. Expectations, maybe.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:15 pm

I’m late to the party, but “Wooohooo!”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:18 pm

The economic theories of politicians and lobbyists are often different than the economic theories of just plain economists.

Politicians are allowed to use logical fallacies and non sequitors, so there’s a greater variety of theories to pick from.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:19 pm

CNN going into over drive for Obama. Impressive the lying they are spouting.

Rodney King's Spirit (9ce6d4) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:20 pm

Sammy,

Dude, Romney did not “botch up” that part of the debate. What on earth does “botch up” even mean in your galaxy ? He was merely exercising respect for the President by telling him that he’s not using the term “ObamaCare” in a snarky context.

That type of gentlemanly behavior scores points with “undecided” voters.

Get real.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:28 pm

You know, a lot of Romney’s campaign is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”

Obama was elected, and things didn’t get much better.

So therefore, it was because of Obama.

Ronald Reagan used this in 1980, but there it was only a telling point. In the end, Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 because of an AFL-CIO endorsement, which got a lot of traditional Democrats to vote for him, because Democrats are supposed to be good for the economy.

Jimmy Carter had campaigned citing the “misery index: he had invented, which consisted of just adding the annual inflation rate and the percentage unemployment rate together.

In 1980, the misery index was a whole lot worse.

So “are you better off now than you were four years ago” was a telling point.

It undermined Jimmy Carter’s whole claim. And you say four years is enough to tell whether any claim he is good for the economy is true. You can take stock after 4 years.

It went right to the reason a lot of people tended to vote only for a Democrat and not to vote for a Republican.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:30 pm

* and you can say. (not just say)

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:31 pm

According to the paper, “When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB ‘proposal’ requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.”

So, a Congress passes a law that sets up a side-congress who get to perpetuate the goals of the original Congress in future years? They issue decrees that require a new law to veto? Each time?

Seems like an open and shut separation of powers case. BWDIKINAL

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:38 pm

Glenn Reynolds sums up: “Yeah, Romney was channeling Reagan. Obama was channeling Biden.”

If you really want to piss off a liberal, say “Romney was channeling Reagan. Obama was channeling Palin.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:46 pm

Comment by DRJ — 10/3/2012 @ 9:55 pm

These were the headlines I saw, about an hour after the debate:

” Romney defends tax plan; Obama doubts his math — By Paul West and Kathleen Hennessey | 7:19 p.m.”

They never cut to the chase there. Obama said Romney would cut taxes by $5 trillion ad Romney said he wouldn’t do it. Obama gave the best illustration of the math to date by saying that there aren’t enough deductions among people in the highest tax brackets to compensate for the reduction in rate.

Romney kept on talking about percentage of taxes paid, but never made clear that was a different statistic than what Obama was using.

Obama was using static analysis. Not just static assuming no effect on growth from tax cuts, but absolutely static. Obama was saying if everybody’s income was the same, and the facts reported on tax returns the same, you couldn’t collect the same amount of dollars by lowering rates across the board and limiting deductions only for the highest tax brackets.

But Romney wasn’t talking about the amount of taxes collected if everything was the same – he was saying that the share of (income) taxes paid by people with the highest reported incomes – the top 1% whatever – would grow.

Barack Obama cited a study of Romney’s tax plan. The Wall Street Journal ran a whole editorial about that – that’s it’s been debuncked and they’ve had to largely retract. Romney didn’t say that, or go into any of the reasons that study might be no good, but he said there have been bout six studies and he saw one today (probably in his debate preparation) that said Barack Obama wuld raise taxes on the middle class.

There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.

Obama said nothing to this.

It left Obama with the choice of agreeing with that, or acknowledging that not all studies are correct.

Romney did not go into details. It really would have been better to go into details. At least a few of them. It doesn’t matter if most people can’t determine the truth of them, by themselves anyway.

He probably couldn’t, because he wasn’t familiar enough with all this, and his debate preparation did not focus on mastering facts that are likely to be argued about.

And that’s bad.

Romney loves Big Bird but will kill his funding

It will be interesting to see what they go with in the print version.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/3/2012 @ 11:58 pm

I recorded a number of networks on my 5-tuner DVR and went back and looked at the various reactions.

Fox: D’oh. These guys are over the moon and the token Dem is not very happy.

CNN: Really good panel, except for Van Jones(!). All panelists but Jones agree that Romney won big. Even Donna Brazille and James Carville agree, although Carville tried to argue with some insta-polls later.

ABC: God what a collection of airheads. But even they agree that Romney took it. George Will is the only grownup there.

CBS: The ghost of Rather lives on. The call it a tie.

At this point my wife makes me stop.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:00 am

One other note: CNN took a poll of “registered voters who watched the debate.” It was slightly +R.

Take-aways:

1) 67-25 Romney won. That’s bi-partisan in this day and age.

2) Everyone who watches a debate votes. That there were a few percent more Rs than Ds indicates Republicans remain more engaged.

3) Twice as many (35-18 or somesuch) say that they are more likely to vote for Romney as a result, as opposed to the same for Obama. Half say it didn’t matter. This is really big.

4) Obama and Romney tie on likeability.

5) Romney wins most “who would do betters” by 10 points.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:06 am

62. Comment by Bugg — 10/3/2012 @ 6:42 pm

A bank vice president depended on SSI and Medicare. REALLY?

Not SSI. Regular Social Security. He probably more means Medicare alone, although undoubtedly, Social Security was an essential element of her budget, even if she got a pension and/or had income or withdrawals from savings, of three times as much.

Here’s his full quote: (with my additional comments)

Obama….My grandmother died three days before I was elected president. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice.

Living alone “by choice”. What does that mean? It can’t mean only that her husband died.

She didn’t want to move in with him or his sister? She didn’t want a roommate, possibly paid for by Barack Obama? (This would be the mid-2000s decade)

Or did not want to go into an assisted living place?

All this I suppose goes into the term “fiercely independent” which is besides the point he wants to make.

And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.

OK. No problem.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:22 am

“He never confronted this idea of Medicare being more efficient – having fewer administrative costs. Yes, it has fewer administrative costs, because it just about never questions bills.”

Sammy – Medicare having lower administrative costs than private insurance is a bogus argument.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/medicare-administrative-costs-are-higher-not-lower-than-for-private-insurance

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:23 am

One thing I thought Romney did badly: he had trouble with the quick kill, and often got lost among his talking points. Luckily for him, they at least made sense, as opposed to the other guy’s.

I kept hoping, every time Obama brought up the $5 trillion thing, that

1) he’d say that Obama must be thinking about his addition to the Debt, or

2) say that Obama’s math is only true if you have a stagnant economy — like this one. In a growing economy you can indeed cut tax rates and do the other things.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:26 am

“But inventory control can break down economy wide, because that the result of decisions taken by different producers, and eventually the production curve gets more hyperbolic than the consumption curve,”

Sammy – You have attempted to make this “inventory control” argument before and have never explained it in an intelligible manner. Inventories are controlled by individual firms, not by some economy wide invisible mechanism. If you are attempting to repeat the argument of some economist, you or they are not doing a very good job. I suggest a link.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:26 am

Obama goes on to say he wants to keep Medicare by not overpaying providers. He argues that with Romney’s (current) plan traditional Medicare will collapse, if private insurance is an alternative, because the sickest seniors will remain with Medicare. What he’s arguing is that Congress won’t be able to afford it. (Since when has that ever stopped Congress??)

But wait. You are still going to have the same number of seniors, with all their different variety of medical conditions with the insurance premiums paid for by the federal government, or their care being for directly by Medicare.

When he says the insurance companies will find a way to cherry pick, what he’s saying is that the premiums offered by Congress will be too high.

OK, make them lower. At some point, even with mandatory acceptance, you reach equilibrium. Even if the offered rate would only work with adverse selection. You can adjust premiums every year

But the whole idea is to put pressure on medical costs. Pressure, but not dictates.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:29 am

“Obama gave the best illustration of the math to date by saying that there aren’t enough deductions among people in the highest tax brackets to compensate for the reduction in rate.”

Sammy – Obama never explained where his $5 trillion tax cut number came from when Romney has consistently said his plan was revenue neutral all along. Obama did not want to cite a partisan think tank which made up the numbers for him so all Romney had to do is keep repeating he was not calling for a reduction in revenue and that by raising rates as Obama was proposing would cost jobs. He didn’t directly call Obama a liar, but the effect was the same.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:38 am

Not one mention of that Romney tape. I guess they all know it was edited.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:40 am

“Obama goes on to say he wants to keep Medicare by not overpaying providers.”

Sammy – And Medicare’s actuary estimates that 15% of providers will exit the business as a result of Obama’s cuts that Obama says have no effect on seniors. Pull my other finger Barack.

“OK, make them lower. At some point, even with mandatory acceptance, you reach equilibrium. Even if the offered rate would only work with adverse selection. You can adjust premiums every year”

Sammy – Mandatory acceptance and adjusting voucher price every year based upon market conditions eliminates adverse selection issue over time.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:44 am

“Obama gave the best illustration of the math to date by saying that there aren’t enough deductions among people in the highest tax brackets to compensate for the reduction in rate.”

Sammy, that was particularly innumerate of Obama. Sure, in a stagnant economy like we have now that kind of math makes sense, but if we ever had some growth if would be a truly stupid thing to say.

I find it truly funny that Obama thinks that he has a better grasp of financial dynamics than the guy who started a successful hedge fund. He brings arithmetic to a partial differential equation fight.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:44 am

382. 392. Comment by Elephant Stone — 10/3/2012 @ 11:28 pm

Dude, Romney did not “botch up” that part of the debate. What on earth does “botch up” even mean in your galaxy?

The whole discussion of Obamacare and Obama’s cuts to Medicare. Romney almost missed that Obama was panning cuts to Medicare, but that wound up OK.

I said:

Unfortunately, he talked only about Obama wanting a price cut, and how that could cause providers to drop out of Medicare, but not about the death panel of medical experts that is to start work in 2017 (although that’s not specifically Medicare)

He never confronted this idea of Medicare being more efficient – having fewer administrative costs. Yes, it has fewer administrative costs, because it just about never questions bills.

Obama talked about how Medicare could deteriorate under a voucher system, if many people left it,
but didn’t seem to know it could deteriorate any other way and Romney never brought up that point I think.

I guess things weren’t punctuated well enough. When I said Romney kind of botched up that part of the debate I was referring to what I was going to say further, not to the previous sentence, which was:

Mitt Romney also didn’t realize or know that Baack Obama no longer minds the term “Obamacare”

You know the way I write. Maybe.

The sentence with “botch up” was the start of a new topic.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:46 am

Sammy, who do you think Medicare pays anyway? WHen Obama suggests that retired folks aren’t losing a dime, it’s true since they also aren’t getting a dime. But the people who provide their services are getting quite a bit less, and they are going to take action to minimize that.

Suppose that there was a free senior lunch program, where the Feds paid local restaurants to feed seniors. One day the Feds decide to cut the amount they pay per meal by 15%. You could say that the seniors aren’t losing anything, but I bet you the meals are 15% less good. IF you pass another law saying they cannot cut the meals, they will cut something else, or raise the price to other people. And THAT is just math.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:49 am

Also, did anyone catch Obama suggesting that a company’s profits are like a tax on top of their costs?

A purely static and fairly Marxist analysis, neglecting all the ways a company can cut costs and/or increase demand (and thereby price) and that UNLIKE GOVERNMENT a company cannot make you buy something if you think it is overpriced, or outlaw their competitors.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 12:54 am

He was merely exercising respect for the President by telling him that he’s not using the term “ObamaCare” in a snarky context.

He sort of half-apologized for using the term.

My feeling was he didn’t know that Barack Obama was using the term himself already.

It’s not necessarily negative. And it’s definitely his bill (even though he didn’t exactly write it) He wanted it. And there’s no simple other term.

(By contrast, Obamaphone is all wrong, and couldn’t have gotten started without somebody deliberately setting out to mislead)

That type of gentlemanly behavior scores points with “undecided” voters.

The point would be this: That not everybody knew that Obama was OK with that term. So for that reason it would make sense to sort of apologize even if he knew this was now the vernacular for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, called earliier by Obama the “Affordable Care Act”.

But I thought Romney didn’t know this was now the common term, nor did he know that Jim Lehrer was no longer anchoring the PBS Newshour. (I think maybe actually he does show up occasionally, on Fridays, and he still co-owns the program, as indeed does also Robert MacNeil)

He hasn’t been the regular anchor since December 2009.

The whole show is an outgrowth of PBS coverage of the Senate Watergate hearings. It started out as a nightly recap.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 1:04 am

And Nightline started out as “America Held Hostage, Day xxx” after the hostages were taken in Iran in November, 1979.

This went on so long, that, in March, 1980, ABC decided to make it a regular program, and renamed it “Nightline”

Since (and actually long before) Ted Koppel left, it’s declined.

Look at that. It’s as a contraction of “it has” not “it is”

ABC keeps on wanting to put a Johnny Carson / David Letterman type show in that time slot.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 1:13 am

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/4/2012 @ 12:38 am

Sammy – Obama never explained where his $5 trillion tax cut number came from

Romney never said it either – he just denied.

This was one of those places they just contradicted each other.

Romney was saying that was not his plan.

when Romney has consistently said his plan was revenue neutral all along.

Obama did not disagree that that was what Romney said his plan was.

Obama…Now, Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions.

He just said Romney would have to eliminate deductions that affected people below the highest income levels.

Obama: …Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.

Obama was basing his analysis on a misrepresentation of Romney’s proposal. Romney didn’t catch this.

Romney never actually promised or proposed that people in the middle class get only tax cuts!!

But instead he proposed a combination of cuts in rates and changes in tax law, so that the average amount of federal income taxes paid per income bracket would stay about the same. If I have this right.

For some people income taxes would go up and for some people they would go down, depending on what their circumstances were. If they lost more because of changes in deductions than they gained from lower tax rates, their tax would go up. Even for people with an adjusted gross income of $35,000 a year. If they didn’t have so many deductions, their tax would go down.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:08 am

CNN calls it strongly Romney’s debate, 67% to 25%.

IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully In All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:08 am

Daleyrocks continued:

Obama did not want to cite a partisan think tank which made up the numbers for him

I think Romney assumed these were just Obama’s numbers. I didn’t realize there was some think tank he used. It’s a distinction without a difference anyway.

Obama did cite “independent” studies as to the question as to whether it would be possible to raise enough revenue from “closing loopholes” only for the highest brackets as to make up for would be lost by reducing rates (on all brackets)

Why didn’t Romney mention the partisan think tank?? Because he didn’t understand what Obama was doing. There’s a back story to all of the statistics Obama cited.

Obama is not simply lying.

so all Romney had to do is keep repeating he was not calling for a reduction in revenue…

For such a large reduction. (He also said reductions would be balanced out by increases)

Actually I think something else maybe. Romney, at least for the “rich”, (a misnomer that I think this debate avoided) was talking not about percentage of income paid in taxes, but percentage of taxes paid per income category.

Romney never made clear he was using a different metric than what Obama was using in discussing Romney’s proposals.

and that by raising rates as Obama was proposing would cost jobs. He didn’t directly call Obama a liar, but the effect was the same.

It came across as a difference in opinion as to some things, and unresolved contradictions as to others.

Nobody won the debate on that issue. It depends on what the facts are, and you need some source outside of the debate to know who, if anybody, is right.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:12 am

The closest maybe Romney came to calling Obama liar:

Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:16 am

If the Mitt fits then you must admit!

Andrew (228f86) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:18 am

Romney also said about the size of the tax cut, that if it were so, he would just not do it, which seemed to concede maybe it might and seemed to lead to the idea he would cancel some of his tax cut. That’s really where it ended.

Romney:… And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. …

A bit later:

LEHRER: That’s where we started. Yeah.

Do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan?

OBAMA: Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is, “Never mind.”

And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you described, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s — it’s math. It’s arithmetic.

Where did Romney say he only wants to eliminate loopholes for the highest brackets? Where did Romney say he wants tax cuts only for those with the highest incomes?

Anyway Obama then switched topics to small business growth.

Eventually, Romney said:

ROMNEY: I think first of all, let me — let me repeat — let me repeat what I said. I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That’s point one.

So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that’s not my plan.

Number two, let’s look at history. My plan is not like anything that’s been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working.

Never been tried before? What happened to Ronald Reagan and the 1986 tax reform????!!

I know, Mitt Romney was very young when this happened.

Only 40.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:34 am

History began with Clinton?

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:36 am

Full transcript of the Barack Obama, Mitt Romney presidential debate in Denver by the Denver Post (on the San Jose – i.e. Silicon Valley – Mercury News website)

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_21695181/full-transcript-barack-obama-mitt-romney-presidential-debate

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:41 am

409. Actually, Romney did eventually talk about the Obamacare “death panels”

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:47 am

Comment by SPQR — 10/3/2012 @ 9:10 pm

I would not be surprised if Obama’s performance was the result of his own increasing realization that he won’t be reelected.

No, it’s the realization that the facts are not on his side. Well, actually he always knew that the case against Republicans – at least the case he’s making – is phony.

He’s like a lawyer sort of committed to arguing a case he’d rather not argue. He may be very uncomfortable with it.

And he may have given up on trying to make a case for some points he is trying to argue, because there is no case. Especially the math.

So why should he expect it to work??

It’s all baloney.

I am of the opinion that Obama lacks stick-to-it character. The next month will be interesting to see if he continues to just phone it in from the golf course.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:01 am

Sorry that at the end was a quote from SPQR:

I am of the opinion that Obama lacks stick-to-it character. The next month will be interesting to see if he continues to just phone it in from the golf course.

When he’s doing something that has no reason to work, why should he push it?

He’s like a lawyer who knows he’s got a bad case.

I think largely, this may not be his case. Other people came up with all these misleading arguments.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:06 am

Romney says Dodd-Frank says if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, but they didn’t go on and define what a qualified mortgage is, so banks are reluctant to give mortgages.

I would think if it was quite like that, they wouldn’t be reluctant, they just wouldn’t do it. So there’s got to be more to the story than this.

The problem with qualified probably is, the criteria are irrational. The only true criteria needed is that the price not be too high.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:20 am

After sleeping on it, I can’t remember a republican presidential candidate that dominated a debate like Mr. Romney. Nice going.

mg (44de53) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:23 am

Benzos will cause loss of memory, mg. Take a break for a few days and Google “Reagan”.

nk (875f57) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:39 am

Under a doctor’s care. Do not just stop your medications.

nk (875f57) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:41 am

I don’t recall Reagan dominating from start to finish. Perhaps your meds have worn off.

mg (44de53) — 10/4/2012 @ 4:01 am

nk- watch it again. This was a demonstration on how to take down a mindless bully. From mannerism’s to substance, this was complete domination. Mitt has set the stage for Mr. Ryan to continue the beating.

mg (44de53) — 10/4/2012 @ 4:16 am

Well, ok, then. Safe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE

nk (875f57) — 10/4/2012 @ 5:47 am

I do believe that since this debate made quite a bit of news– the tweets, insta polling and the broad after the fact media coverage of it– it may encourage more, not less people to watch the next ones. Voters who didn’t bother to watch Wed. night may now want to see for themselves if the next ones are another car crash for the Dems or if Romney/Ryan will confidently continue to carry the ball even further down the field. (People like to watch contact type sporting events.)

Mitt needs to be relentless, keep up his game, and Ryan needs to impress in his debate. I doubt there’s much Obama can do in three weeks about prettying up his record and honing his debating skillz/body language/facial tics, but I do expect they’ll force him to be better prepared for the next one. Biden? Nuff sed. Because of early voting this first debate was really really really important for Romney, and he aced it.

elissa (0be1d3) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:11 am

Al Gore, arbiter of all things atmospheric:
“Obama arrived in Denver at 2pm today. Just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don’t know…”

— The former veep is right in one sense: Obama DID suck wind.

Icy (537b0c) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:14 am

Good points, there, elissa.

The nice thing about this, is that the next Presidential debate isn’t until the 16th—that gives almost two weeks time for the “Romney cleaned Obama’s clock” narrative to settle in, and reach the ears (or eyes) of even the most apolitical, clueless, disengaged people.
The YouTube clips will continue to play, the Tweets, talk radio, the chain emails of “Hey Uncle Larry, did you see how my man Mitt whupped your beloved Obama in the debate !?”, etc.

Also, coming up on the 11th, Ryan will re-enforce the Romney-Ryan ticket, and that will be news for a few days. Obviously, Romney came across as extrememly well-informed, and we can count on Ryan to perform similarly. Ryan can probably recite the GDP of Latvia and cough up CBO projections in his sleep. I think Biden is even more likely to say something “Biden-esque” in an attempt to keep pace with Ryan, or even try to top him. I’m sure the Obama team will have an ambulance and paramedics backstage for the Ryan-Biden debate, just in case Biden’s foot gets stuck in his own mouth.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:37 am

YouTube, Tweet, Facebook, and blogs, might be 3% influence in 1220. If they still exist. We had bulletin boards not too long back. We have had political machines proven to work, for a long time. How many of you laptop soldiers will get out of your mother’s house to vote, in any case?

nk (875f57) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:49 am

The math is easy.

nk (875f57) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:50 am

Someone in the Gipper’s corner:

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/romney-reagan-debate-win/2012/10/03/id/458613?promo_code=EACE-1&utm_source=GatewayPundit&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

“Best since Lincoln”.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:17 am

One superficial reason this happens to incumbents is that they live in a presidential bubble where their ideas aren’t challenged, but the core reason is that incumbents start to believe the hype that they’re special. In other words, incumbents — especially incumbents who are ahead in the polls — are more likely than challengers to fall victim to hubris.

The question is whether that incumbent can overcome his hubris and accept he needs to rein in his ego and reboot. I don’t know if Obama can.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:17 am

I agree, DRJ, and I would add that in Obama’s case, the extreme and unnatural adoration and worship he experienced last time around has seriously harmed him in as far as his ego v. reality goes.

He’s been handled with kid gloves and had handlers cover for him for so long, I wonder if he grasps that there is indeed life outside the bubble and that a huge portion of it has little or no respect for the job he’s done in these past few years.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:23 am

298, 434. I don’t think ole Joe can make weight.

DQ the doddering oaf, act like God is in His heaven.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:26 am

nk,

Anyone here old enough to vote is going to vote. This isn’t exactly a sports-talk site. Just like everyone taking 90 minutes to watch a political debate is going to take 10 minutes to vote.

BTW, get well soon. I mean that.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:29 am

438, 439. Only explanation given the anniversary, the ode to Mooch, the recessive body language, resignation, is the Corsi ‘Down Low’ break.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:30 am

How many of you laptop soldiers will get out of your mother’s house to vote, in any case?

Comment by nk — 10/4/2012

Great point. The 72 hours before the election will be critical. It will take shoe leather and knocking on doors to get out the vote. It will also take phone banking. Preaching to the choir in blogs will help with enthusiasm, as a lot of the readership are the type of folks who may volunteer, and those folks have a disproportionate impact.

Any loser can troll 1,000 blogs and invent 1,000 sockpuppets on twitter and pretend that is a movement. In fact, I know of a few losers who do that sort of thing.

But making a difference will take getting out of the house and for most of us, getting into a swing state in the final 72 hours.

Dustin (73fead) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:32 am

Because of early voting this first debate was really really really important for Romney..,

What’s up with early voting in September, anyway? Is there really a need to increase the number of uninformed voters by allowing voting before the campaigns have even gotten into gear?

Oh, maybe for servicemen — I could see that — but for most people, there really isn’t a need to vote THAT early.

Also, what happens if they die between voting and election day?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:34 am

Previous Presidential debates that were supposed to be about the economy and domestic issues, wandered off into foreign policy. Military spending or trade policy can be used to segue into it.

This one didn’t, in spite of what is going on with Iran, with the Benghazi attack and with Syria – NATO was even having an emergency meeting dealing with Syrian shelling across the Turkish border.

I think the reason this didn’t happen was Jim Lehrer didn’t ask any such questions.

This made the debate a little bit denatured, but there’ll be time for that, and this is subject matter that’s been stalemating Washington and
with which the Obama campaign is trying to make Romney unelectable.

The closest we came to foreign policy was Obama saying this:

OBAMA: The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function. And as commander-in-chief, that is something that I’ve worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.

He also said Romney wanted to spend $2 billion on the military that the military didn’t ask for. Of course it only asks for what it needs to accomplish the mission (or capabilities) the president outlines, and he’s building a military, r heading heading toward a military that can only confront China is eastern Asia – and nothing else: A big gamble that there will be no other problems in the world besides China in 2019.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:34 am

Another morning-after-the-debate thought:

This debate took place in Colorado, an important battleground state. As a result, I’d bet that the Colorado voters and media were even more tuned in to the debate (and its aftermath) than usual. That should help Romney quite a bit with his Colorado ground game and local media coverage.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:34 am

Did anyone notice what extremely good behavior most of the press was showing last night? As if they didn’t want to be seen pimping for Obama while everyone was watching. Except for pimps like David Gregory, of course.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:39 am

Here are some undecideds’ reaction to the debate from the Denver Post. These are some unaffiliated reactions to the debate,

Susan Donlan-Roy, Evergreen, unaffiliated, retired law enforcement

“It comes down to a person’s track record. And you have a man who as a U.S. Senator missed 50 percent of the sessions. I think it comes down to ‘You’ve had plenty of time to get things done.’ I’ve made my decision.”

Todd Eakes, 47, Broomfield, unaffiliated, software sales

“I thought Romney did a better job. He seemed to have a lot more examples and specifics about the last four years. Obama seemed reluctant. It felt like he was on the defensive. I’m leaning a little more toward Romney now.”

Kyle Miller, 30, Greenwood Village, unaffiliated, finance

“I was trying to hear more specifics from Romney. There wasn’t a lot of substance on how he would pay for these things. I’m still undecided. I want to see more details about Romney’s plan.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:42 am

DRJ,

Romney took careful aim last night at the lies that Obama has been telling in Ohio (“tax cuts for the rich”) and in Florida (Mediscare). If the CNN instapoll is correct and he has a 15-20% edge in “more likely to vote for”, his numbers should change pretty remarkably in the swing states, where he was already a bit ahead according to the most recent polls.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:44 am

327. Comment by gary gulrud — 10/3/2012 @ 8:56 pm

Northern MN gets 2 inches of snow tomorrow afternoon.

Yearrgghhhh!

New York City is keeping summer weather till Friday. Then it rains and gets into the 50s.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:47 am

That’s interesting, Dana. Thanks for finding and linking it.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:49 am

Dana,

That “more detail” thing will hurt Romney if he cannot make his point clearer there. He didn’t answer that very well last night. He started to talk about how the details are the legislature’s job and there’s a level of detail where it is pointless to specify, but instead he got tangled up in talking points.

“More details” is also a troll’s game, since no matter what level of detail you specify, the troll will claim that it either isn’t enough, or will pick some detail as a wedge issue, or find one that is ill-advised and hammer you on it. Like most troll games, it’s one you need to avoid.

Cue DSPCA.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:50 am

No love from his home town…the Chicago Tribune throws Obama what might be the ultimate insult, describing him as “that guy at the meeting who’s surreptitiously checking his email.”

Dana (292dcf) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:51 am

New York City is keeping summer weather till Friday. Then it rains and gets into the 50s.

It’s been an extremely hot summer in Los Angeles. Even the coastal areas (where there isn’t a lot of A/C) have been in the 80’s and 90’s since early August. Most of us would welcome some rain. Or snow even.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 7:54 am

One small caveat: There are several more debates and Obama could still bring his game.

Back in 1984, Reagan lost the first debate badly. His campaign manager was worried that Reagan would be shown up by Mondale’s command of facts and figures, so they tried to cram Reagan’s brain full of the same.

Did. Not. Work. Policy-wonk Reagan was a tongue-tied mess, tripping all over his muddled facts and figures. It was bad.

Reagan came back the next debate as himself and destroyed Mondale with charm and wit. And won 49 states.

This is not over.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:01 am

…and Obama could still bring his game.

Obama has no game. He needs his opponents not to show up.

Literally in the case of his senatorial rivals, who dropped out when his minion Axelrod broke into their sealed divorce records.

Figuratively in the case of McCain.

Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:04 am

_______________________________________________

ABC keeps on wanting to put a Johnny Carson / David Letterman type show in that time slot.

FWIW, the ABC program that dates back to the early 1980s, when Americans were being held hostage by Iranians, is going to be shunted to a later hour and replaced with another show, I believe starting around January 2013.

Romney says Dodd-Frank says if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, but they didn’t go on and define what a qualified mortgage is, so banks are reluctant to give mortgages.

Romney also didn’t mention how Obama’s Attorney General has been hustling (ie, extorting) the banking industry to give out mortgages to applicants who really aren’t qualified.

americanelephant.wordpress.com, August 5, 2012: According to the Obama administration, the nation’s largest mortgage lender — Wells Fargo Bank — and dozens of other banks are racist bigots…. Attorney General Eric Holder has added Sun Trust Bank and Bank of America to the long list of bank bigots. Some 60 other lenders are under investigation for allegedly denying blacks and Latinos home loans solely due to the color of their skin, or for allegedly “steering” them into higher-cost subprime mortgage loans when they could have qualified for prime loans. If you see everything through the prism of racism, don’t be surprised if you find it everywhere.

I just advised everyone to read Gretchen Morgenson’s Reckless Endangerment. The financial meltdown was not a pretty picture, and the interplay of Washington, Wall Street and corrupt mortgage lenders dumped a major crisis on us all. The corrupt mortgage lenders were the big mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The financial crisis was caused by the federal government — politicians trying to be compassionate when they should have been responsible and thoughtful.

Some have chosen to believe that the reason that poor people are turned down for mortgage loans — the only reason — is racism. Because some minorities are poor, they should be offered loans at a less discriminatory rate than those who can afford it. We are still undergoing the fallout from the mortgage crisis, and now Holder wants to do it all over again.

Holder has smeared the entire banking industry as racist — an absurd lie — in order to help lawyers and housing-rights activists to justify a bigger shakedown of the industry… He has ordered banks to “modify’ their lending practices to approve more minorities, regardless of their creditworthiness, and forced them to open branches in depressed urban areas, regardless of profitability.

Wells Fargo must devote at least $50 million to down-payment assistance for homebuyers in predominately minority areas of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Miami, Oakland, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Washington DC.

In the case against Wells Fargo, Investors says:

1. Justice’s 37-page complaint covers the period 2004 to 2009, yet Wells ceased making wholesale subprime loans in July 2007.

2. Over the same period, Wells scored “outstanding” grades on its Community Reinvestment Act exams conducted by federal regulators, who monitor bank lending in minority areas and work closely with Justice prosecutors. Wells set aside more than $110 billion in mostly low-interest loans for minorities as part of so-called CRA loan commitments.

3. In the 29-page consent order, Wells denies discriminating against minority borrowers and insists that an internal review of its loan files proves its subprime borrowers had “significantly weaker credit characteristics” than its prime borrowers. Black, white or brown, they would not have qualified for prime loans.

4. In approving loan products, originators followed published underwriting guidelines and weekly “rate sheets” pegging prime and nonprime interest rates to credit scores — the higher the score, the better the rate, and vice versa. They also followed an automated checklist, “Enhanced Care Filter,” to prevent “steering” a prime candidate into subprime.

Why did Wells Fargo agree to settle, when the charges are preposterous? They said “Solely for the purpose of avoiding contested litigation with the Department of Justice.” And, Investors adds, avoiding brand damage from boycotts and negative media orchestrated by Holder.

^ This type of bilge from Obama’s White House doesn’t even involve the other type of garbage also closely affiliated with Obama, referring to the crony capitalism involving companies like Solyndra.

Don’t cry for us, Argentina.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:08 am

_______________________________________________

Kyle Miller, 30, Greenwood Village, unaffiliated, finance

“I was trying to hear more specifics from Romney. There wasn’t a lot of substance on how he would pay for these things. I’m still undecided. I want to see more details about Romney’s plan.

Miller isn’t too old, so his squishiness isn’t totally puzzling. Still — and assuming he’s sitting on the fence not because of his interest in a third candidate but because he sees himself as independent or “centrist” — for anyone to be continuing to give Obama even an ounce of benefit of the doubt (after 4 years of mostly uber-liberal junk) implies a person with an ideological backbone that’s fractured with lots of nonsensical left-leaning decay.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:19 am

59. Comment by Ag80 — 10/3/2012 @ 6:40 pm

Social Security is sound!!! What?!!

It is. It is. They were both right. At worst, it needs slight modifications in benefit calculations.

But neither candidate delved into the issue (explaining why people have said it is in trouble, but it is not really in trouble)

The projections of economic growth used in asking Social Security projections are really low by historic levels, and not considered acceptable politically. They have low, medium and high rates projected but the medium is low.

Sammy Finkelman (8423d6) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:32 am

Obama and his staff showing disdain for moderator Jim may turn a portion of the media to report facts and tell the truth.

mg (44de53) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:38 am

“I think Romney assumed these were just Obama’s numbers. I didn’t realize there was some think tank he used. It’s a distinction without a difference anyway.”

“Why didn’t Romney mention the partisan think tank?? Because he didn’t understand what Obama was doing. There’s a back story to all of the statistics Obama cited.”

Sammy – I think everybody but you understands the source of the talking point the Obama campaign has fabricated out of thin air about Romney’s tax plan. There is absolutely zip, zero, zilch, chance Romney did not understand what Obama was doing. You are the one who does not understand.

Given the choice of directly calling the president a liar or repeatedly emphasizing he had no such plans contemplating what the president suggested and that there were in fact several ways to achieve it, supported by studies, Romney chose the less confrontational route and with some jiujitsu managed to tie it into job creation.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:51 am

“The projections of economic growth used in asking Social Security projections are really low by historic levels, and not considered acceptable politically.”

Sammy – The issue with social security is not economic growth projections, it is the ratio of people drawing benefits relative to the people paying into the system.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 8:59 am

Romney says Dodd-Frank says if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, but they didn’t go on and define what a qualified mortgage is, so banks are reluctant to give mortgages.

That’s interesting. Trying to do a refi with the current rates and having unexpected difficulties.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/4/2012 @ 9:03 am

Kevin M,

You’re correct to point out that Mondale won the first debate in ’84.
I sympathize with your desire to wait until the eggs are hatched before we count our chickens. I’m not one to do end zone dances until all the referres signal “touchdown.”

However, Reagan had a booming economy which had included a mind-boggling one million jobs reportedly created in Sept ’83. For a good year, the economy was gaining momentum. He had a strong hand to play.

In other words, for Reagan, the lackadaisical first debate was a matter of performance.

For Obama, he performed poorly AND the economy is not in his favor.

Elephant Stone (65d289) — 10/4/2012 @ 9:09 am

Sammy, let’s talk about Social Security:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.

SOURCE: A Message to the Public from the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees.

The SS Administration’s projections assume moderate/intermediate cost economic growth, which is between low cost growth and high cost growth. (In other words, high cost growth results in a lower GDP and low cost growth results in a higher GDP.) Here are all economic assumptions used by the SS Administration, and here are the GDP assumptions for the decade from 2004-2013:

For the intermediate assumptions, the average annual growth in real GDP is projected to be 2.9 percent over the short-range projection period (2004-13), a slower rate than the 3.3 percent average observed over the historical 40-year period (1962-2002). This slowdown is primarily due to slower projected growth in total employment. For the low cost assumptions, annual growth in real GDP is projected to average 3.4 percent over the decade ending in 2013. The relatively faster growth is due mostly to a higher assumed rate of growth in worker productivity. For the high cost assumptions, real GDP is assumed to fall in the first and second quarters of 2004, resulting in a total decline in real GDP of 0.8 percent. After 11 quarters of recovery, a second recession, with a total decline in real GDP of 1.6 percent, is assumed to begin in the second quarter of 2007 and last 3 quarters. After the second recession, a moderate economic recovery is assumed through 2010, with continued modest economic growth thereafter. For the high cost assumptions, annual growth in real GDP is projected to average 2.2 percent for the decade ending in 2013.

According to the World Bank, the annual U.S. GDP for 2004-2011 is:

2004 = 3.5
2005 = 3.1
2006 = 2.7
2007 = 1.9
2008 = -0.4
2009 = -3.5
2010 = 3.0
2011 = 1.7

According to my math, that comes to an average annual GDP of 1.5 — which isn’t even in the ballpark for the low or intermediate cost assumptions. In fact, it makes the high cost assumption look optimistic.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/4/2012 @ 9:32 am

However, Reagan had a booming economy

Yeah, that was a big help. Obama couldn’t get 49 states with free sexbots.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/4/2012 @ 9:44 am

465. Comment by DRJ — 10/4/2012 @ 9:32 am

Sammy, let’s talk about Social Security:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983,

Remember the trust fund? After 1983, increased Social Security taxes were sold as away of prepaying for Social Security. First the “trust fund” was run up, now it’s run down.

Having use dthat as an argument for raising payuroll taxes, would-be Social security reformers are estopped from using the argument that Social Security is now running an annual deficit.

and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.

It’s true. The annual collections are less than the opay out. Of courtse that makes a lot of assumptions.

I say, by the way, why stop at 75 years? Maybe there’s an inevitable problem after 250 years? At some point maybe population will stop growing and maybe even shrink.

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits

Correct. And politicians are estopped from arguing that’s a problem.

For the high cost assumptions, annual growth in real GDP is projected to average 2.2 percent for the decade ending in 2013.

But that is an abysmal, even intolerable and historically low, record.

The question is what are projections after 2013?

The high rate for those years is now unrealistic but it is not unrealistic foir the future.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:24 pm

Write more, thats all ӏ have to say. Literallу, it seеms as though you relieԁ
on the νideo to make your point. You clearly knоw ωhat yourе tаlking аbout, why throw away
youг іntelligenсe on just posting νideos to your weblοg when you cоulԁ bе giving uѕ something enlightening
to reaԁ?

Kai (2a7d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:26 pm

For the intermediate assumptions, the average annual growth in real GDP is projected to be 2.9 percent over the short-range projection period (2004-13), a slower rate than the 3.3 percent average observed over the historical 40-year period (1962-2002). This slowdown is primarily due to slower projected growth in total employment

Now Ryan, Romney, all the re

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:36 pm

For the intermediate assumptions, the average annual growth in real GDP is projected to be 2.9 percent over the short-range projection period (2004-13), a slower rate than the 3.3 percent average observed over the historical 40-year period (1962-2002). This slowdown is primarily due to slower projected growth in total employment

Now who do you believe: Romney, and Ryan, or the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees?

Because you can’t believe both.

In fact to believe the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. you have to believe Bill Clinton.

You have to agree that no President, not even him, could raise the rate of economic growth any higher.

My point is, the rates assumed by the trustees, althoygh higher than what we are experiencing now, are not really politically acceptable. You can’t say that won’t happen, but if it does, there’ll be a whole lot of other problems besides Social Security not being able to pay out what has been promised!!

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:41 pm

“would-be Social security reformers are estopped from using the argument that Social Security is now running an annual deficit.”

“The annual collections are less than the opay out. Of courtse that makes a lot of assumptions.”

“Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits

Correct. And politicians are estopped from arguing that’s a problem.”

Sammy – Why do you believe people should be estopped from using facts to review the solvency issues of Social Security?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:44 pm

Comment by DRJ — 10/4/2012 @ 9:32 am

that comes to an average annual GDP of 1.5 — which isn’t even in the ballpark for the low or intermediate cost assumptions. In fact, it makes the high cost assumption look optimistic

the high growth assumption I think it is,m is intended to be optimistic. They usually use the internmediuate in maing projections. My
point is, actually the intermdiate projection is pessimistic.

Now Obama and Romney, they’re counting depletimng the social Security trust fuind and the interest on the money in the fund. After that, there’s not too big a proble,

But the chances that things will work out any where near what is projected are very very small. Either Social Security will be more sound, or a lot less.

You can’t really make these 75 years projections. (after 75 years it gets even worse, because for 75 years from now, at least you have U.S. births for the past 10 years and you can sort of guess the near future too.

and next 10 yeda

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:47 pm

“Now who do you believe: Romney, and Ryan, or the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees?

Because you can’t believe both.”

Sammy – Really? What do they disagree about specifically in terms of future funding shortfalls?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:47 pm

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/4/2012 @ 2:44 pm

Sammy – Why do you believe people should be estopped from using facts to review the solvency issues of Social Security?

Payroll taxes were raised on the assumption that the Treasury bonds were an asset to Social Security, and the money taxed and not used after 1983 could be used when the baby boomers retired.

It would amount to huge betrayal not to count
that as an asset.

Social Security debt must be treated the same as all other Treasury debt.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:51 pm

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/4/2012 @ 8:59 am

Sammy – The issue with social security is not economic growth projections, it is the ratio of people drawing benefits relative to the people paying into the system

That was anticipated and planned for.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:52 pm

If there is a solvency problem, it’s a general federal government solvency problem, not a Social Security solvency problem.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:53 pm

157. Comment by Ag80 — 10/3/2012 @ 7:21 pm

OMG, the President just said we cut out private enterprise so that the government can control student loans. Romney needs to pounce on this one.

He didn’t.

He just spoke on another point.

ROMNEY: Mr. President, Mr. President, you’re entitled as the president to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts. All right, I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and — and grants that go to people going to college.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:58 pm

Romney was sort of copying Moynihan

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 2:59 pm

Someone’s idea for saving Social secuirty:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/life-span-gap-skews-entitlements-toward-the-well-off.html

Well off people live longer, so give them less.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:24 pm

I’ve heard of Fisking. I’ve observed a Fisking in progress. But no one Finkelmans a speech quite like Sammy Finkelman.

Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:40 pm

“It would amount to huge betrayal not to count
that as an asset.

Social Security debt must be treated the same as all other Treasury debt.”

Sammy – I find it almost impossible to follow your meanderings on this subject.

To the extent the social security “trust fund” hold an intergovernmental note rather than actual treasury obligations and the funds backing such obligations have been squandered by Congress, when Social Security operates at a cash deficit, it requires the government to borrow externally to redeem that intergovernmental note to satisfy Social Security benefit obligations.

It is the same with Medicare “trust funds.”

These are really not difficult concepts to grasp.

The report of the actuary to Social Security and to Medicare is the place to look for the unpoliticized spin about future solvency rather than the report of the trustees.

If you claim you can either believe Romney or the trustees, but not both, you should point out the areas of disagreement.

Social Security payroll taxes were raised almost 30 years ago under Reagan to bolster the solvency of the system, which should not estop any fresh looks at solvency today based on workforce participation rates, birth rates, longevity, inflation, economic growth, and the like, all of which sound almost like budgeting, a process which you have previously declared useless.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/4/2012 @ 3:52 pm

We have the PBS Newshour on while preparing dinner.

Here is the Judy Woodruff first take on the debate after briefly mentioning that most polls show Romney won it: (paraphrase)”Axelrod said truth suffered at the debate last night.” Then she marveled: “The president did not bring up the controversial 47% issue where Romney called people victims. He did not raise Romney’s position on social issues like abortion.”

Isn’t it interesting that she framed it in that particular way? She would never think to say, for example, “Romney didn’t bring up the president’s position on abortion or some other social issues.” It would just never occur to her and her producers to frame it that way.

elissa (595ecf) — 10/4/2012 @ 4:25 pm

28. Comment by nk — 10/3/2012 @ 6:21 pm

It’s meter and reasonsance. And magic worfds(sic). Whose gonna read the transcript? Obama’s better.

You actually needed to have the sound turned off for Obama to come out better. Then his body lanaguage looked better.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/4/2012 @ 4:44 pm

Comment by elissa — 10/4/2012 @ 4:25 pm
Yes, it is interesting how those Freudian slips pop up.

Then she marveled: “The president did not bring up the controversial 47% issue where Romney called people victims. He did not raise Romney’s position on social issues like abortion.”

I heard someone today (Rush?) mention this. His take was that while the MSM was aghast that the one did not make use of the 47% narrative, that Obama and Co. knew better because to bring it up was to let Romney clarify the whole issue and come out on top, because, whether Woodruff and company realize it or not, like so many things it is a contrived issue that will not hold up under scrutiny.

I imagine the same about the abortion issue, If Obama wants to make a point of it, his stand on infanticide will get more exposure in 30 seconds than it has in the last 5 years combined.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/4/2012 @ 4:48 pm

It was Rush, MD, and he believes Obama knew the 47% was a non-starter and really, did Obama want to bring up “videos”???

Let me tell you why he didn’t bring up the 47%. First thing, you people are lying about what Romney said in that 47%. You’ve taken it out of context. Romney was not writing off 47% of the country. Romney does not have an ambivalent attitude about 47% of the country, and to accuse him of it would have been setting him up for another grand-slam home run, of which he had many last night. Now, you people in the media may not get it, but the Obama campaign understands that 47%’s a nonstarter. Romney did not mean what you in the media have accused him of meaning by it. That would have been a hanging curveball for Romney. I’m sure he was hoping for it. He was prepared for everything else.

I’m sure Romney was dying to get that 47% question, and I hope that he gets it down the road, because, you know, there’s another answer to it. “Mr. President, you really want to bring up old videotapes? You want to talk about some things that we found you saying on some old videotapes, Mr. President? You really want to go there? ‘Cause I’ll be happy to. I’ll go anywhere you want to go. You want to talk about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and national health care, I’ll be glad to go back and relive everything you’ve ever said on tape.”

Dana (292dcf) — 10/4/2012 @ 5:06 pm

Curious… why the 47% question was not brought up by ~~Obama~~ Jim Lehrer,

Before the debate, Robert Gibbs predicted that Obama wouldn’t need to get his hands dirty attacking Mitt Romney on that issue.

“I have no doubt that the moderator is going to ask Romney maybe to spend a little bit more time telling us more elegantly, in his words, what he meant by what he said,” Gibbs said to The Huffington Post two day ago. HuffPo explained that Gibbs was saying why “he doesn’t expect Obama to need to bring up those comments much in the debate.”

Gibbs made that comment after joking that Obama would mention the 47 percent video 47 times

So, Obama spent the whole debate waiting for Lehrer to hit Romney with a question about the video and it never happened — whether because they ran out of time or because Lehrer wasn’t going to do Obama’s dirty work for him, we can’t know for sure.

Could a suggestion or two have been made to Lehrer regarding questions to ask Romney?

Dana (292dcf) — 10/4/2012 @ 6:30 pm

401. I see there are even more ways the Medicare efficiency statistic is bad.

Since Medicare, unlike private insurance, doesn’t really collect any premiums, or the premiums are not related to individual beneficiaries, it might be that cost per dollar spent is the right metric – they actually should spend more dollars not the same paying out claims.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/5/2012 @ 11:21 am

“But inventory control can break down economy wide, because that the result of decisions taken by different producers, and eventually the production curve gets more hyperbolic than the consumption curve,”

403. Comment by daleyrocks — 10/4/2012 @ 12:26 am

Sammy – You have attempted to make this “inventory control” argument before and have never explained it in an intelligible manner. Inventories are controlled by individual firms, not by some economy wide invisible mechanism.

The idea was this: Inventory control broke down in many many companies simultaneously. Prices wouldn’t drop unless this was happening ll over
(this used to happen in recessions)

It no longer happen in recessions but it did happen in the prolonged post-World War II expansion.

Even though individual firms were good at inventory control, it broke down because while the total size of the market going up, for many many firms their own sales started going down.

Economy wide there was more being produced than could be sold. Everybody knew what they were producing and selling but nobody knew enough about other people’s plans.

If you are attempting to repeat the argument of some economist, you or they are not doing a very good job. I suggest a link.

No. This is original with me. As of about 1980.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/5/2012 @ 11:27 am

“Everybody knew what they were producing and selling but nobody knew enough about other people’s plans.”

Sammy – Yes. Even now there are still laws against collusion.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/5/2012 @ 11:41 am

“Everybody knew what they were producing and selling but nobody knew enough about other people’s plans.”

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/5/2012 @ 11:41 am

Sammy – Yes. Even now there are still laws against collusion.

Even then. But I think you could have industrywide estimates of supply and demand. There probably were then, but while maybe estimated demand was more or less accurate, supply was not, because of newer smaller producers who took time to get started…

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/5/2012 @ 2:16 pm

488.

Daleyrocks: If you are attempting to repeat the argument of some economist, you or they are not doing a very good job. I suggest a link.

SF: No. This is original with me. As of about 1980.

Actually, I think I got the idea from the 1948 New York Times Index. I didn’t look up the artucles — that would be terribly time consuming, but the index itself was enough (as the New York Times later pointed out) It told a story. I wanted to see whqat people wroote at the time.

I remember “pipelines filled up”

I don’t think this ever mad eit to the level of economists.

Maybe somebody could search for “pipelines filled up” (pipelines was a word used in the 1940s to describe a supply chain, maybe not so common lateer AND also 1948 or maybe 1947 even – first the pipeline would fill up, then prices would drop and maybe such words as “prices” or “inflation” or maybe try “inventory”

I searched (via Google books – just a search
“pipelines filled up” and 1948)

I found this now: Page 28 of the Apr. 10, 1948 Business Week (some magazines are treated as books by Google books. Libraries used to make bound periodicals and I guess some of them got scanned)

http://tinyurl.com/9ufoh24

Or better yet, the search page,, because you get such a small snippet:

http://tinyurl.com/8kjczcc

With the pipelines filled up, the tire companies are bumping into more competition from chains and mail-order houses— which already are selling lower- priced lines.

That’s what happened throughout the economy to end the postwar inflation. The news came out rather sudedenly, in October, 1948.

Notice the CPI stops rising in the middle of 1948:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008

There’s actually a price decline for the whole year 1949. (and a recession)

The course of economic history was interrupted by the Korean War (it started June 25, 1950) and we had wage and controls in 1951.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/5/2012 @ 2:31 pm

Best of the Web Oct 5, 2012 3:50 ET

(Barack Obama’s personally delivered spin)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578038521345997206.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

When I got onto the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney…

But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney–because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.

The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need any more teachers in our classrooms. . . . But the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers — can’t get enough of them.

The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called “pioneers” of outsourcing jobs to other countries. But the guy on stage last night, he said that he doesn’t even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing–he’s never heard of them. Never heard of them. Never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. He said that if it’s true, he must need a new accountant.

Now, we know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney, because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant. So you see, the man on stage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been saying for the last year.

James Taranto:

According to the White House website, the rally began at 10:30 a.m. Mountain Time, which means it took Obama and his team of writers less than 14 hours to generate these comebacks.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/5/2012 @ 2:38 pm

492. (It might be useful for Barack Obama to give chapter and verse about tax breaks that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas)

That was actually a very good line by Mitt Romney and maybe even spontaneous, and that is not an answer. If Obama tries to explain that, it’ll probably sound very specious.

Romney did say things wrong.

And that rehearsed line about Big Bird was terrible. Big Bird and the Newshour are in no danger, no matter what happens, except from poor writers and producers.

The deficit didn’t double – it’s a little over $1 trillion a year, where it was in Fiscal 2009 – maybe he had some other statistic in mind, like average deficit during his presidency, or something to do with the accumulated debt, although you still don’t get doubling in 4 years.

And the Administration did not pick only losers like Solyndra – what they did there is keep it on life support. (Romney was careful to attribute that comment to a friend, like Harry Reid. I took it as a joke, not a statement of fact, but maybe some people didn’t notice that little twist. There’s a reason for saying it in the form of a quote)

But that line about that tax break not existing was exactly right. Or – let Obama explain what that tax break consists of. I don’t think he can in any way that anyone can have any respect for.

Sammy Finkelman (4a78ae) — 10/7/2012 @ 10:35 am

“The deficit didn’t double – it’s a little over $1 trillion a year, where it was in Fiscal 2009”

Sammy – The fiscal 2008 deficit was $459 billion. The fiscal 2009 budget was not passed until after Obama took office, passed the Stimulus Bill and added a humungous supplemental chunk of supplemental appropriations. The fiscal 2009 deficit was $1,413 billion, more than double the prior year’s.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/7/2012 @ 10:52 am

494. And tho TARP was passed pre-Inauguration POTUS-elect was given GM/Chrysler buyout go-ahead.

The slush fund was an entirely Dhimmi construct.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/7/2012 @ 10:58 am

463.

SF: Romney says Dodd-Frank says if you give a mortgage that’s not qualified, there are big penalties, but they didn’t go on and define what a qualified mortgage is, so banks are reluctant to give mortgages.

Comment by MD in Philly — 10/4/2012 @ 9:03 am

That’s interesting. Trying to do a refi with the current rates and having unexpected difficulties.

The Wall Street Journal had a front page story about this Thursday October 4, 2012, but they attributed banks’ reluctance to make mortgage loans and subjecting applicants to more rigid “qualifications” to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac forcing banks to buy back bad loans (or else lose the ability to do business with them) on ever more flimsy or even spurious, and certainly irrelevant grounds.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now have a virtual monopoly on mortgage loans. Together with federal agencies they are now backing 90% of all mortgage loans, up from around 2/3 (66%) before the housing bubble collapsed.

Burdened by Old Mortgages, Banks are Slow to Lend Now

There are a few anecdotes about people who lost out on mortgages, sometimes at the last minute. In one case there was a house that needed repairs, which the buyers were going to repair. They had to get a 1-year bridge loan by a local bank that wouldn’t try to sell it to Fannie or Freddie. In another case somebody moved from Denver to Virginia, and the bank wanted proof of local income (because he was a real-estate agent) even though he didn’t change employers and earned a fixed salary. Eventually, his wife got a mortgage in her own name alone. In another case there was a problem with a credit score – which has its problems – it dropped by 100 points for one woman, because a 5 year old girl purchased a $3 app on the family’s Kindle e-book reader, and they didn’t pay it. It took the family nearly an extra month to close. The perils of paperless billing…

Put-backs have now allowed both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make small profits since their $142 billion federal bailout. They’ve hired what banks call “bounty hunters” to look for errors in loan applications. It’s a “gotcha mentality” according to Laurence Platt, a lawyer at K&L Gates in Washington.

Somewhere, I suppose, Barack Obama is taking credit for this absurdity, since that means Fannie and Freddie are now fiscally sound.

There’s actually been a little bit of give on this now. Beginning in January, 2013, banks won’t face put backs if there’s been a record of on-time payments for 3 years. Fannie and Freddie will also be rejecting more loans right after buying them.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said in September that he was optimistic the change would make mortgage markets more open and make their asset buying policy more effective.

So maybe wait till December and close after January 1. But that’s when the Dodd-Frank provisions about thoroughly documenting a borrower’s ability to repay kick in!! (Or maybe there’s a small window of time in which neither apply?)

Sammy Finkelman (4a78ae) — 10/7/2012 @ 11:25 am

Somebody I know can’t get a home equity loan, even though he has about 50% equity (some years ago he bought out his brother when they inherited the house he lives in) and he only wanted about several tens of thousands of dollars, still leaving him with plenty of equity.

He said to them you know me. I’m your eye doctor. You know I’m good for the money. But they said he didn’t have a credit record. They offered him a credit card and told him to come back in six months.

Sammy Finkelman (4a78ae) — 10/7/2012 @ 11:33 am

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/7/2012 @ 10:52 am

Sammy – The fiscal 2008 deficit was $459 billion. The fiscal 2009 budget was not passed until after Obama took office, passed the Stimulus Bill and added a humungous supplemental chunk of supplemental appropriations. The fiscal 2009 deficit was $1,413 billion, more than double the prior year’s.

So they’re basing it on Fiscal 2008. This spin talking about Fiscal 2009, is all over the press. Nothing that explains that statistic is any where. Where is the Romney campaign?

Yes, you could argue a bigger deficit in 2009 was unavoidable, but the bare fact is correct.

Sammy Finkelman (4a78ae) — 10/7/2012 @ 11:40 am

Gallup says the results of Friday’s household survey “should be discounted”

http://t.co/8MsKcMJ3

Colonel Haiku (04593b) — 10/7/2012 @ 12:08 pm

“Nothing that explains that statistic is any where.”

Sammy – Not unless you look for numbers that make sense. Sort of like the lie Obama and the left had been pushing about Romney’s tax plan. It makes sense if you ignore what Romney is actually proposing.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/7/2012 @ 12:38 pm

“494. And tho TARP was passed pre-Inauguration POTUS-elect was given GM/Chrysler buyout go-ahead.”

gary – Auto bridge loans were given pre-inauguration, not buyouts. Obama voted for TARP, did he not?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/7/2012 @ 12:41 pm

“Nothing that explains that statistic is any where.”

Comment by daleyrocks — 10/7/2012 @ 12:38 pm

Sammy – Not unless you look for numbers that make sense.

Yes, of course. But I didn’t know where to go looking for them (deficit and accumulated debt every year)

It wasn’t in any of the newspapers or magazines or on the air, I think.

Everyone was using Fiscal 2009 as the base.

The Obama campaign or friends of the campaign were treating this claim of doubling the deficit as a glaring and blatant lie by Romney that Obama somehow didn’t have the presence of mind or the knowledge to rebut.

Maureen Dowd’s column – in which President Obama gets chewed out by President Jed Bartlet – again. (and does some debate prep with him)

BARTLET “You doubled the deficit.”

OBAMA When I took office in 2009, the deficit was 1.4 trillion. According to the C.B.O., the deficit for 2012 will be 1.1 trillion. Either you have the mathematics aptitude of a Shetland pony or, much more likely, you’re lying.

You could see how some reporters were trying to figure out how what Romney said made at sense at least halfway, but they couldn’t make complete sense of it.

Sammy Finkelman (4a78ae) — 10/7/2012 @ 3:00 pm

“Everyone was using Fiscal 2009 as the base.”

Sammy – Only liberals that drank the kool-aid that Obama inherited a $1 trillion deficit when he in fact helped create most of it himself.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/7/2012 @ 3:03 pm

The lie is Obama’s, he knows he signed fiscal 09 budget. He knows he asked for and signed the stimulus bill that added hundreds of billions to it. But blame Bush is the theme for the greatest liar President we’ve ever had.

SPQR (b948c8) — 10/7/2012 @ 3:39 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/06/Obama-Blames-Kerry?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

narciso (ee31f1) — 10/7/2012 @ 4:06 pm

gary – With respect to TARP, according to Greg Mankiw and the White House, the CBO did not book its investments in bank preferred stocks and certain other instruments on a strict cash basis, lowering its impact on the deficit very significantly.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/which-budget-deficit.html

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/7/2012 @ 9:34 pm

rKUixo I appreciate you sharing this blog.Thanks Again. Awesome.

bookmarking submission (66140a) — 10/7/2012 @ 9:35 pm

10/3/2012

Open Thread: Presidential Debate

507 Responses to “Open Thread: Presidential Debate”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out