Romney is a little weak on this medicare issue.

So if traditional medicare weakens or falls apart, people with vouchers having a choice are worse off?!?

sleeper;1286660 wrote:Romney is a little weak on this medicare issue.

Not really. It makes sense for what he is saying.
Breaking it down, he wants to offer a voucher program and give people a choice. The benefits will stay the same for lower incomes, but higher incomes will see a drop in benefits.

sleeper;1286660 wrote:Romney is a little weak on this medicare issue.

Yeah, no one has a good answer. Everyone knows benefits have to be cut, but neither of these guys will admit it.

gut;1286669 wrote:Yeah, no one has a good answer. Everyone knows benefits have to be cut, but neither of these guys will admit it.

And neither said how they will work with Congress on it....
W tried in 2005 and both parities destroyed it.

If something I'm forced to pay into most likely isn't going to be there when its time for me to collect...NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND

Risky play for Romney to take on Dodd-Frank (point had some merit, but he tripped all over it). Obama finally getting on base.

ptown_trojans_1;1286668 wrote:Not really. It makes sense for what he is saying.
Breaking it down, he wants to offer a voucher program and give people a choice. The benefits will stay the same for lower incomes, but higher incomes will see a drop in benefits.

I agree with his programs. I just think Obama made some good points about how the transition will work and Romney failed to counter.

gut;1286669 wrote:Yeah, no one has a good answer. Everyone knows benefits have to be cut, but neither of these guys will admit it.

Yup.

Ok, Romney cleaned up his Dodd-Frank commentary a bit. Politically it's a loser - most people hear "bank" and they become deaf and dumb on the issue.

Someone is probably already at work turning that "I'll repeal Dodd-Frank" into a commercial.

Romney is out-performing Obama so far. But, in my opinion he's going to get hammered in the press for saying he doesn't support "a $5 trillion dollar tax cut" but then consistently said he wanted to lower rates. He's going to have to say he doesn't want to lower rates as much or raise taxes on the middle class. PERIOD. Obama did a pathetic job of calling him on it though. I don't think Obama has quite fumbled but he's done a very poor job imho.

BoatShoes;1286687 wrote: But, in my opinion he's going to get hammered in the press for saying he doesn't support "a $5 trillion dollar tax cut" but then consistently said he wanted to lower rates.

Probably because that's a half-truth. He's said over and over it's revenue neutral with offset from deductions. Obama even went on a whole spiel about corporate welfare (deductions, credits, etc..) - something Romney's plan would address.

Here it comes (Romneycare)....yep, leave it up to the states to know what works best for that state

I'm still waiting on how either man will tackle the January 2nd cliff.
If Romney is elected how will he work with the President and Congress to ensure he doesn't enter into a mess?
And for Obama, how does he work with Congress, specifically the House?

This is all way to vague.

How's about having a non-wimpy old man trying to moderate and make these guys shut up when they go over the time???

gut;1286690 wrote:Probably because that's a half-truth. He's said over and over it's revenue neutral with offset from deductions. Obama even went on a whole spiel about corporate welfare (deductions, credits, etc..) - something Romney's plan would address.

But that's simply not true Gut. There is not enough deductions and credits to make it revenue neutral without raising taxes on the middle class. PERIOD.

So, Romney would have to endorse rate cuts lower than what he's argued for 16 months. PERIOD.

It doesn't magically become revenue neutral just because he says so in his debate over and over. It's wrong.

ccrunner609;1286696 wrote:Romney slamming stats right in Obamas face. He has no answer.

"You, Pelosi and Reid"...........OUCH!

Yeah, but remember, the point is not slams and zingers.

Romney is doing fine on his own without the one-liners.

BoatShoes;1286697 wrote:But that's simply not true Gut. There is not enough deductions and credits to make it revenue neutral without raising taxes on the middle class. PERIOD.

By what study? The study you are citing has walked that back. Other studies say it's possible. It depends partly on your assumptions for the pro-growth contribution.

And you're being completely dishonest when you say "it can't be done without increasing taxes on the middle class". The middle class has few deductions, and Romney has said point blank several times he won't raise taxe on the middle class. The far more likely case is the rate cut isn't 20%, or it isn't revenue neutral. This "$5T tax cut" and "middle class tax increase" is bullshit partisan rhetoric. It's not just misleading, it's a lie.

And even if the rate isn't 20% but 17% or perhaps 15%, the merit still stands. If Obama isn't passing hidden taxes on the middle class in this sluggish economy where the fed prints money, it's inevitable that he'll increase taxes directly on the middle class.

ccrunner609;1286700 wrote:Did Barack just suggest we pay medical experts on performance????? Merit pay for doctors?????

I don't think it's a ridiculous idea. Implementation is a whole other story.

I like how Obama tells everyone what Mitt thinks...ummm he's standing right there telling you what he thinks.

You can tell Obama is panicking.

bases_loaded;1286705 wrote:I like how Obama tells everyone what Mitt thinks...ummm he's standing right there telling you what he thinks.

You have to be a moron not to see that Obama's only rebuttal is the strawman, attacking things Romney is not saying right next too him.

gut;1286701 wrote:By what study? The study you are citing has walked that back. Other studies say it's possible. It depends partly on your assumptions for the pro-growth contribution.

And you're being completely dishonest when you say "it can't be done without increasing taxes on the middle class". The middle class has few deductions, and Romney has said point blank several times he won't raise taxe on the middle class. The far more likely case is the rate cut isn't 20%, or it isn't revenue neutral. This "$5T tax cut" and "middle class tax increase" is bullshit partisan rhetoric. It's not just misleading, it's a lie.

And even if the rate isn't 20% but 17% or perhaps 15%, the merit still stands. If Obama isn't passing hidden taxes on the middle class in this sluggish economy where the fed prints money, it's inevitable that he'll increase taxes directly on the middle class.

Tax Policy Center study. Martin Feldstein tried to argue differently in the WSJ and in fact he just confirmed he just confirmed the results. You have to assume massive growth that there's just no evidence for.

The one thing I like about Romney is that look he gets in his face when Obama says something; you just know he has something up his sleeve to counter with.

BoatShoes;1286714 wrote:Tax Policy Center study. Martin Feldstein tried to argue differently in the WSJ and in fact he just confirmed he just confirmed the results. You have to assume massive growth that there's just no evidence for.

Tax policy center has long since walked that back. They admitted they made assumptions about likely cuts they had no basis for. It's fair criticism to ask MR what he is going to eliminate, but it's a bald-faced lie to say "he's going to raise taxes on the middle class". That's one of 3 alternatives, and the left is pumping it as fact when it obviously isn't.