Presidential Debate, Debate Presidential? Part II

Lehrer introduces the second segment, what to do about the deficit.

At this point I'm just going to tackle the most glaring issues with Romney's points because he can't seem to go 5 seconds without spouting a falsehood or a lie.

So let's get to the biggest one in his two minutes. This is part II on YouTube, you can follow it here.

"First of all, I will eliminate all programs if they don't pass it. Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for, and if not, I'll get rid of it."

That's a horse that should have been dead since the rumor started about Bush borrowing from China to pay for the extra $200 on middle and low income tax returns.

The best way I can explain it in a way that does not need to get into the often times very complicated nuances in the area of global finances is this: we cover deficit spending by selling interest on debt to people willing to buy it. We call these bonds. Essentially, we say, as the world standard currency for practically everything right now that we're going to borrow against our currency and you'll get an interest payment if you buy bonds that let us substantiate the borrowing, on top of getting the original money you spent buying the bond back at the end of the bond's maturation date. That is how we spend in deficit. Currently about 20% of our debt is owed to foreign investors. Most of which is balanced out by mutual agreement to forego collection of in response to THE DEBT THAT THEY OWE US. The rest is owed TO OURSELVES. We did the same thing for WWII. We didn't borrow from China, Britain, France or any of our allies, we borrowed from ourselves in the form of loans taken out on monies currently set aside at home. War Bonds, Treasury Bonds, a whole myriad of bonds is how we paid for WWII. The same thing applies today. By the way, we reached over 2x GDP debt during WWII. We haven't even broken 1.4x yet in this recession. So when Romney says "Borrow from China" what he's really talking about is the Bush policy to make available bonds to cover deficit spending made necessary by his tax cuts and the subsequent "stimulus" he signed afterwards, the purchase of bonds to pay for such were made primarily by the Chinese.

Look here for an idea of who owns what debt in the US Deficit.

Oh wow. "Sorry Jim, I'm going to defund your employer and fire you."

"I like firing people" redux.

Ugh, more lies.

Obama does well enough rebutting Romney's lies.

"Obama should have grabbed Simpson-Bowles."

HE DID!

We had trillion dollar deficits well before he got into office.

That 4 Trillion dollars in cuts counteracts almost 80% of his spending, far better than his predecessor who didn't have a plan to pay for ANY of his near $10 Trillion in deficit spending.

Even in 2010 Obama was for discontinuing the tax cuts for high-income earners.

NFIB! Drink! Wait 700,000 jobs? According to whom? Even the NFIB doesn't say that concretely and I'm looking at their website right now.

And Lehrer just lost control again.

Spain? Hlurgh! Lie. And is Romney on cocaine?

Lehrer, learn to do your job, seriously, at this point I hope Romney defunds and fires you.

Obama retorts and points out some of Romney's weaknesses. He's jumping all over the place though, he has to stay on point, jumping from revenue to education? Keep it on subject. Attack pure revenue sore thumbs, education is not it for your audience. Romney's audience is the John Birch, Turner Diary type that views public education as evil.

And crap you just let Romney take off on his canned point to slam you........

And you deserve that hard right hook......

And Romney just opened himself up to a whole litany of shit for that "I don't know what you're talking about" line.

Republican governors, sure. Keep in mind:

If it ain't a shade of green, that mean's they're moochers who rely on the real job creators to keep them afloat....just chew on that for a minute. How many of those states are hardcore republican? Most of them, to save you the time of looking it up. NM, AZ, UT, ID, OR, WY, MT, ND, SD, IA, WV, VA, KY, NC, MS, AL, SC, LA, OK, pretty much anybody who whines and complains about socialism and yet they are the greatest recipients of....

Yeah, part II of the first presidential debates......

I need a day's rest. 'Cause FUCK if I know what the hell Romney is talking about....

Part 3 tomorrow, I need to get to sleep because I have work in the morning.

Presidential Debate, Debate Presidential? Pt. I

I was not able to watch the debate live, as I had wok obligations that did not allow me to. I tried as best I could to avoid any mention or insight into the debate until I got home so that I could watch it non-stop and write down my thoughts. Now I may not exactly be an expert on anything as my interests are mostly researched on my own time by they do vary considerably and I'm no slouch in the research category.

The opening question and following 2 minutes for each candidate were about how they would create new jobs. Obama spent a good thirty seconds apologizing to Michelle for missing their anniversary night. Obama seems laid back and articulate from the get go. He's considering what he says before he says it, and because of that may seem less than assertive. His points on job creation are congruent with his stance on job creation since his first campaign in 2008, and with the actions he's taken since he was inaugurated. His performance could be better, but he has been performing:

Romney then follows up with a 5 point plan that seems to fly in the face of all of his campaign promises, and reference numbers that I know from previous research into similar claims by other Republicans in the primaries to be based on nothing. On point 1, the MOST jobs that anybody in the industry admits could be created if absolutely everything went their way is 1.4 Million by 2030. Wood Mackenzie's study here. Point No. 2 would not have the desired effect for anybody but the importers and multinational corporations that have already been exporting jobs to Latin American (see: GM, Chrysler, Ford here; Tomato Growers here). On point No. 3, well, he has a few details to flesh out and I'm sure he will. He is right however about the state of our schools currently. Obama has however made long strides towards improving that, which goes against Romney's narrative of this path being the wrong one. On point number 4, well again he has a few details to flesh out and I'm sure he will, but he has a very long uphill battle on that one considering most of his budget promises on the campaign trail run in line with Ryan's plan. Interesting note on No. 5. Go here and watch his body language at 6:20-6:24. I've got quite a bit of experience sussing out lies and dishonesty when tracking people down through their relatives. Notice the "no" head shaking, in the middle of what is supposed to be an affirmative point, as witnessed by the vertical motions made by his hands. To me that's a clear sign that he's either pulling my leg or hiding something. He then goes on to talk about something that definitely has me thinking he's worried about the only kind of small business he actually has exposure to, large firms. Small business growth has been increasing at a rate far outpacing that of large firms, and have been doing pretty well in making up the losses from the recession. SBA study here. The thirty year low claim is something I'll have to research later. The source I've seen so far is making an accurate statement about per capita business startups this year being half of that of the rate in 1977. 

Good god, did he just say trickle down goverment?

Retort by Obama, he talks about his Race To The Top program. No lies. Taxes, no lies. He's essentially repeating everything he's been trying to implement and said he would try to implement for almost 5 years now. His claims about Romney's tax plan ring true, at least according to things Romney has said on the campaign trail, and the Tax plan he released on his website, Tax Policy Center details it here.

Romney's retort require alot of details to be fleshed out in order to ring true about his tax plan. All of the points he brings up about the middle class are true. Problem: "When you also account for growth." Numbers needed, never released. The past 30 years have been an example of how that approach works, tax cuts never spur growth, nor do they increase revenue. How anybody could buy that is an example of how under-educated the American people are.

The Keystone XL will not help our energy independence, it will help Canada's energy exports to China and other expanding markets.

Clean Coal? Sorry, the Coal industry's woes have nothing to do with Obama. You can thank cheap natural gas for that. Not only that, Clean Coal is dirtier than any other energy source out there, period. Coal waste is more radioactive than most nuclear reactor waste.

And yet again, Romney has alot of details to flesh out to make his claims ring true.

Obama's retort is spot on. 1

Ok. Now. I'm only 15 minutes into this thing and already I'm about to throw something at the monitor. Romney literally just backed up Obama's point by saying his tax plan will not put into place a cut that adds to the deficit. Exactly, it has to be paid for, how?

"I'm used to people saying something that's not always true but just keep on repeating it and hoping I'll believe it."

Romney describing Obama's assertion as the exact same thing the Republicans have been doing consistently, full blast, all the way up to 11 since 2008. Birth Certificate? Muslim? 16 Trillion? No Jobs Created? Corporate Taxes the Highest in the world? The economy is in the worst shape it's been? "You didn't build that?"

Jesus H tap dancing, titty fucking, balls deep in Mary Magdelene Christ crushing crackers on a pogo stick. That's snifter through monitor material right there.

The small business claim is BS. Most small businesses are S Class corporations, LLC's and Partnerships. Which means profit is passed through to shareholders and taxes paid at the individual level. Lowering the corporate tax rate would do nothing to help most small businesses, because the "corporate tax rate" only applies to C-Class corporations.

Obama's retort is on point.

Lehrer almost completely lost control of the debate, and it's only 20 minutes in.

I'll have to look into Romney's claims about the top 3% of small businesses employing half of the people working for small businesses but I smell BS. The company I work for, rms, employs over 650 people and is considered a small business but by the metrics I've been able to find to define small business doesn't fall into that 3%, the only metric I could find to actually define small business is people employed (Census, SBA). The numbers from that alone drastically swamp Romney's claim. He's in even bigger trouble if he's using a metric based on revenue or profit.

NFIB! Drink!

Little rule, if it has Family, Federation, or Fiscal in the name and is used as a source, it's tied almost directly to the Republican party with little regard for neutrality or intellectual honesty. Focus on the Family, National Federation of Independent Businesses, ANYTHING with "Fiscal Responsibility" in its name. Hell, Focus On the Family is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. If you really want an example of encouraging inappropriate behavior on the part of employers, look no further. That's right, encouraging voter tampering and intimidation. That's the NFIB folks.

Obama, saying what he's been saying, yet again, for 5 years.

Lehrer, you are never to moderate a debate again.

Romney, still not fleshing out any details.

End part 1 of the debate. 24:22 in. Over 9 minutes past the deadline, Lehrer, grow a pair.

I'm going to need a drink.