Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

[Leeds Spur]

So what's the latest after last night. Did Obama do better than the first debate? How are the polls looking at the min?

Obama won.....polls of independent voters say so and if they were good enough for Republicans in the first debate they should be good enough now.

He will kill the momentum Romney had.......and I might add he still didn'y have enough electoral college votes before last night.

Romney is available at 2/1 for anyone who thinks otherwise, put your money where your mouths are.

 

[Leeds Spur]

That was brutal for Romney but it was obvious how the night was going to pan out from the very first question. Romney dancing around the question not being able to give direct answers as to how he's going to achieve the things he claims he will whilst Obama giving a step by step plan as to how he's going to achieve his claims. Romney's way of ending the answer to the first question was also cringeworthy.

It was good that they could stand up......Barry wasn't taking any brick

 

[Leeds Spur]

This is a myth created by Fox and talk radio. MSNBC and CNN would be centre right in any country other the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

lol

 

[Kingdawson]

So what's the latest after last night. Did Obama do better than the first debate? How are the polls looking at the min?

Obama clearly won this debate so it's all tied up.

 

[jts1882]

Romney doesn't have a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit. He just claims he can create 12 million jobs and reduce the deficit by cutting taxes.

I have a plan for him. Get Bain Capital to take over Chinese companies, leverage them with debt and fire the Chinese workers. That would create loads of jobs elsewhere, some of which would be in the US, albeit probably for illegal immigrants.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Obama clearly won this debate so it's all tied up.

In debate terms, not on the electoral college numbers where he maintains his lead.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Romney doesn't have a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit. He just claims he can create 12 million jobs and reduce the deficit by cutting taxes.

I have a plan for him. Get Bain Capital to take over Chinese companies, leverage them with debt and fire the Chinese workers. That would create loads of jobs elsewhere, some of which would be in the US, albeit probably for illegal immigrants.

Good plan...he could definitely make that work.

Romney economics works by bricking on the poor at the expense of the rich.

They guy was born into priviledge and has lived his whole life in a bubble of wealth, protected from lifes harsh realities.

The guy doesn't have a fudging clue

 

[Notmegov]

I just love the way he bangs on about "gasoline" like the US is the only country that uses the stuff.....Not sure he has any idea. In fact i think he just spouts flimflam and fear.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The thing is, Obama has done more regarding shale gas, alaskan oil and drilling in the gulf than Bush ever did!!

And he has invested massively in renewables.

So even on the substance of the debate around the price of oil the US is doing well on increasing domestic production.

But geo-politics and the global economy are still the largest factors affecting the price of crude oil.

Escalating tension with Iran being paramount in that......if they close the Straights of Hormuz the price of crude would double overnight. And there would be fudge all the government could do about it without going to war. These concerns are priced into the cost of oil futures which the industrial sector purchse to hedge against wild deviations on the price of crude.

 

[scaramanga]

Obama won.....polls of independent voters say so and if they were good enough for Republicans in the first debate they should be good enough now.

He will kill the momentum Romney had.......and I might add he still didn'y have enough electoral college votes before last night.

Romney is available at 2/1 for anyone who thinks otherwise, put your money where your mouths are.

Those are terrible odds for Romney. The best he's been based on any Bayesian stats (even after the first debate) was about 5/1. Can't see any smart money going that way at all. Obama, on the other hand, has been hovering pretty steadily around 2/1 so jump on any price you see better than that.

 

[papaspur]

Also there is a clear liberal bias in the American media as a whole. Some worse than others of course, but IMO MSNBC is comfortably the equal of Fox in terms of bias.

No doubt MSNBC is the more progressive news network, but it's not the counterweight to Fox News. First of all, in terms of viewership, Fox News gets the highest ratings.

So for you to cry out about liberal bias in the media is like crying that the team getting its ass beaten 5-0 had the ref give them one call their way for a 50/50. I'd say the whole thing is tilted in Fox's favor.

If you watched MSNBC after the first debate, all the pundits panned Obama's performance. They of course attacked Romney's method of interrupting and looking petty when talking over the moderator when complaining about not being able to retort. No doubt about it, MSNBC's pundits are biased. They're just more level-headed about it.

On Fox, all that brick-spewing scumbag Hannity had to say was how Romney destroyed Obama and what a bitch that Candy Crowley was for "siding" with Obama. How dare she fact-check someone spewing flimflam! Fox News fact-checking involves an agenda. They will take clips out of context, editing them to fit their views. Not a single critique of Romney from Hannity. I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously.

TAXES:
Obama said he would raise taxes for the richest Americans. You don't believe that? That's actually a very specific plan (ie., let Bush tax cuts expire for the top 1%). Raising taxes is only going to reduce the deficit. It's certainly not going to add to it.
Romney wants to LOWER TAXES FOR EVERYONE. That includes the top-earners. But by closing some loopholes and exceptions (it would be nice to know which ones), he claims that the wealthiest will continue to pay the same amount. So in other words, no change there (that's his claim based on no specifics).
But lowering the tax burden on middle-income families is going to ADD to the deficit. This is simple math.

Finally, and I know a bunch of us have made this point already, but Obama is being obstructed from completing his agenda. I know he had 2 years with a democratic house and senate, which allowed him to get healthcare through. I know the need for instant gratification these days, but unfortunately change takes time, especially after the breadth of the fudge-ups from the previous administration that Obama has been mired in. Many economists say we need to spend more money to get out of the recession, on public works and infrastructure, on investing even more heavily in renewable energies, and on education to feed the demand for those manufacturing jobs. For me personally, I want Obama to champion small business even more. Why should large corporations pay less taxes than businesses that employ fewer than 20 people?

 

[jts1882]

One disturbing thing that came out during the New International scandal, was how NI executives were cosy with Cameron and his ministers (Liam Fox?) and had persuaded them to look at the requirement that TV news has to be neutral. The wanted the ability to introduce a Fox style channel here where the news is biased, as well as the analysis and comment.

This outrage from the right about Romney being picked up on a lie by the moderator reflects the danger in such a move. To the American right, press freedom means freedom to say the lies you want without challenge, with the winner being the loudest. The media are liberal because the challenge right wing lies. Remember when Fox tried to patent/trademark/copyright(?) the fair and balanced slogan.

 

[papaspur]

Romney doesn't have a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit. He just claims he can create 12 million jobs and reduce the deficit by cutting taxes.

I have a plan for him. Get Bain Capital to take over Chinese companies, leverage them with debt and fire the Chinese workers. That would create loads of jobs elsewhere, some of which would be in the US, albeit probably for illegal immigrants.

The 12 million jobs that he "claims" he will add are actually just the projected number of jobs that will be created in the next year. A turtle in office would create the same number of jobs.

I just love the way he bangs on about "gasoline" like the US is the only country that uses the stuff.....Not sure he has any idea. In fact i think he just spouts flimflam and fear.

The scary thing is that even when our gas prices are high, they're still the lowest in the western world (correct me if I'm wrong).

Don't even get me started on guns...

 

[Richie]

No doubt MSNBC is the more progressive news network, but it's not the counterweight to Fox News. First of all, in terms of viewership, Fox News gets the highest ratings.

So for you to cry out about liberal bias in the media is like crying that the team getting its ass beaten 5-0 had the ref give them one call their way for a 50/50. I'd say the whole thing is tilted in Fox's favor.

If you watched MSNBC after the first debate, all the pundits panned Obama's performance. They of course attacked Romney's method of interrupting and looking petty when talking over the moderator when complaining about not being able to retort. No doubt about it, MSNBC's pundits are biased. They're just more level-headed about it.

On Fox, all that brick-spewing scumbag Hannity had to say was how Romney destroyed Obama and what a bitch that Candy Crowley was for "siding" with Obama. How dare she fact-check someone spewing flimflam! Fox News fact-checking involves an agenda. They will take clips out of context, editing them to fit their views. Not a single critique of Romney from Hannity. I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously.

TAXES:
Obama said he would raise taxes for the richest Americans. You don't believe that? That's actually a very specific plan (ie., let Bush tax cuts expire for the top 1%). Raising taxes is only going to reduce the deficit. It's certainly not going to add to it.

Fox is the most popular because it is the only right wing news channel. People like to listen to people with similar opinions which is why Fox does so well. As for after the first debate, nobody could have said anything other than Obama getting hammered however liberal they are.

On taxes, you are flat out wrong that raising taxes can only decrease the deficit. Higher taxes will disincentivize investment in the United States and increase incentives for tax avoidance. I don't believe Romney can pay for his tax cuts, but I don't believe Obamas tax rises will bring in much additional revenue either. they are both just spouting rhetoric for their bases.

 

[jts1882]

They don't need to raise taxes, they just need to make sure that everyone pays a fair share. If the big corporations and rich can avoid taxes, then that means higher tax rates for those that can't avoid them, namely small businesses and the middle class. If you got rid of the loopholes designed for tax avoidance, the taxes could be lower for everyone.

The Republicans have confused the issue of cutting tax rates and cutting the tax for anyone. If people are made to pay what they should, that is not a tax increase in a meaningful sense.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Those are terrible odds for Romney. The best he's been based on any Bayesian stats (even after the first debate) was about 5/1. Can't see any smart money going that way at all. Obama, on the other hand, has been hovering pretty steadily around 2/1 so jump on any price you see better than that.

LInkage?

No mainsteam booky has him longer than 2/1

 

[scaramanga]

LInkage?

No mainsteam booky has him longer than 2/1

It was mentioned on the Freakonomics podcast I listened to in the car today. The guy who analysed it had all but one state correct last election and tends to get just about everything right (where there are large sets of data like opinion polls).

He seems to think that Romney is sitting at 5/1 and has rarely been much higher and Obama is hovering at 2/1. If you see a discrepancy between his Bayesian analysis and the odds from the bookies then jump on it - you'll be ahead of the market.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Sorry mate - can you point me towards a site where I can get a bet on??

 

[papaspur]

Fox is the most popular because it is the only right wing news channel. People like to listen to people with similar opinions which is why Fox does so well. As for after the first debate, nobody could have said anything other than Obama getting hammered however liberal they are.

On taxes, you are flat out wrong that raising taxes can only decrease the deficit. Higher taxes will disincentivize investment in the United States and increase incentives for tax avoidance. I don't believe Romney can pay for his tax cuts, but I don't believe Obamas tax rises will bring in much additional revenue either. they are both just spouting rhetoric for their bases.

Don't tell me I'm flat out wrong when this is simple arithmetic we're talking about here. The Bush tax cuts will cost $100 billion a year. The wealthy are already using every trick in the book to avoid paying as much tax as possible. Having taxes raised will create new loopholes? By the way, we're talking about tax cuts that were meant to be temporary and expire 2 years ago. What you're essentially saying is that raising taxes won't raise revenue and that in the end, it's all a wash between Romney and Obama on taxes. By that logic, lowering taxes shouldn't make a difference either. Your argument about losing incentives to invest is conjecture.

As it stands, corporations and the wealthy are content to sit on their money. They didn't go on huge spending sprees to create jobs in the Bush administration, so what makes you think that will change? It's been proven wrong time and time again: LOWER TAXES DO NOT CREATE JOBS (see 2001-2009).
If anything, I would argue that having to pay higher taxes creates more of an incentive not to sit on cash reserves, because more of that is just going to the government. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that I'd rather the wealthy put money back into the private sector than have it go towards taxes.

 

[scaramanga]

Sorry mate - can you point me towards a site where I can get a bet on??

Not sure where you can so that. Probably Betfair specials, but is be surprised if the semi-pros on there haven't already used some form of Bayesian analysis on the opinion polls.