Last time I checked there was no requirement in the Constitution for taxpayers to support a public tv station. Privatize it. Romney's comments were symbolic...anyone could see that.

0.00012% of the budget saved!
BIG MONEY! NO WHAMMIES!

Big Bird will be fine. Jack up Elmo's licensing fees by 2-3% and you'll probably cover the meager funds federal government spends on Public Broadcasting.

The point was - for those that chose to ignore it - if we are going to continue to borrow money from our children and children's children we should at least see if it passes the smell test. We are spending far too much to be borrowing on anything and everything. Both Parties are responsible for this.

He used a super right hyped item that the mouth breathers salivate over.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that the dog and pony show is being discussed any more than "wow, that was a waste of time, neither brought anything new to the table" is amazing.

Romney is a business man, of course he's going to win a debate, his job is to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while jamming it up your back end. Obama is a politician, his job is to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while jamming it up your back end.

as opposed to the concrete plan of hope and change 4 years ago......:yak5:

I love your perception of business men - I have seen some of the best and brightest "disappear" when they dont produce results. Business has no conscience, produce results or you're shown the door. Romney's shareholders will be the American people, he will need to produce results or be shown the door. Obama has shown us his results, there is the door.

I'm confused, where did the "severely conservative" go? This is the guy I could vote for - but how can I be sure he won't change his stripes again?

For someone who only casually watches the news, they might think that Obama is some brilliant, slightly-more-than-human, walks-on-water Messiah. That's how Obama sees himself, and the media bends over backwards to reinforce that.

This debate debunked that myth. This debate showed exactly what happens when you pair off one guy who got where he is because he is black and knows how to use that to his advantage, against another guy who made it to the top of the hyper-competitive business world thanks to his brains and his sweat.

No idea what this means in the polls. But it shows what an empty suit Obama is.

What was Obama's excuse? What did Obama say the next day? Some deranged claim that "it wasn't Mitt Romney" who Obama debated. That's the best the Messiah could come up with.

I never saw r as severly conservative. he has changed his stripes on some issues, but so has obama (gay marriage?)

While Romney said it, I never believed him. Atleast Obama said his thoughts evolved.

so if you dont believe what Romney says, do you judge him on his actions?
The guy was the governor of one of the most liberal states, had first state healthcare, supported education. Those were his actions?
Just curious.

I saw this last night...is this the leader we want to bring this country together...you decide!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/ob...S8XIOcpzf13thD

Depends on a lot of things. Did he change his mind based on more facts. Did he try to do what he said he would do and couldn't get it done. Did he deny he did some of the things he did. Etc.

If he ran on his record in Mass, I'd vote for him. Not so sure now.

to be honest, he changed his story to secure the right wing and get the Repub nomination.

Please show us examples of your opinions. Thanks.

I love your perception of your own grandiose thoughts on politics and business.

Oooooh "best and brightest"! Buzzwords at their best.
I suppose Romney is gonna tell us next how he will unilaterally save the economy while rocking his bizmeth skills to restructure government then make taxes multi-centric?!

Sure.

At his 2008 covention speech, he stood between 2 Greek columns like he was a Greek God. At his inauguration speech (I think), he said something to teh effect of "let today be the day we remember as the day the earth began to cool,and the waters stopped rising".

Likwid, people were claiming to be fainting at every speech the guy gave.

Chris Mathews (MSNBC) said he got a tingle up his leg every time Obama speaks.

We elected a guy whose resume included 3 years in the Senate where he did exactly notihng except run for President. I'm not sure on what basis you elect a guy President who has never done a single significantthing, but this is what we get.

not grandiose, i have seen harvard/yalegrads, with years of experience, shown the door, ceos turn over all the time. You have to perform in business. Results matter. You dont have to perform as a law professor. its a different game.

Likwid, Romney was a hugely successful businessman. That takes some talent. Unlike Obama, he didn't get to be the CEO of Bain Capital because of affirmative action. Romney was at the helm of a firm that made a lot of money. You can't deny that. If Romney was as incompetent as Obama, Bain would have gone bankrupt. Romney didn't add $5 trillion to Bain's debt. He actually created wealth. More than we can say for the Messiah.

We can argue about whether or not business success is a valid credential for being a President, but Romney's business success is a zillion times more tangible than anything Obama did before getting elected.

Where am I wrong?

and if Romney performed poorly he we would be fired. Just like every other ceo that performs poorly. So BS may get them in the door, but they have to deliver.

Wasn't Bain his company....?

I think he was stunned by the level of BS Romney was spewing forth.

What it showed was that Romney doesn't have a basic understanding of marginal tax rates. We all understand that many small business owners are taxed as individuals...but how many are paying themselves over $250k without filing as an LLC or pass through?

If you're in that 3% and Obama's plan is going to kill your business I'd really suggest you seek a qualified accountant!

I agree Obama didn't have a good showing, but Romney wasn't offering many facts.

Obama doubled the deficit = false
Obama stole 750B from Medicare = false
Romney's health care plan covers pre-existing conditions = false
1/2 of green stimulus companies have gone under = false

and on and on...

I've yet to read ANYTHING that suggests Romney really has a plan.

His tax promises are mathematically impossible.

If he was as good of a business person as you suggest he'd be offering a solution to navigate the business, not selling a pipe dream. Romney's career was made by parting companies out for a profit, not structuring them for sustained growth...and there's a BIG difference.

-spence

A lot of CEO's perform poorly...

They usually get golden parachutes and millions in stock options while their companies lay off people by the thousands.

And then their buddies will offer up another position and tell the board that you really need to pay tens of millions or you're just not going to get the kind of talent necessary to run a large company.

It's another world...

-spence

No...

-spence

Check out a company called Staples........

Not mention being a Governor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Staples was one of Bain's earliest and biggest success stories.

But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from.

Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch.

-spence

If I had a leaky pipe I wouldn't call an electrician.
The country has an economic problem trying compete globally. We hired a community organizer to do the job. His expertize was in spending other peoples money. We got exactly what we paid for.
Might be a good idea to hire a successful businessman to help us out.Only with a strong economy and strong tax base will we ever be able to get out of debt.
Hell I'd Warren Buffett before I'd re-elect the President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please do not squeeze lidwids nuts to tite ...he is screaming now...:)

"Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch"

WOW. OK, Spence. So in 2008, what was on Obama's resume that convinced you he had the grand insight into what the US needs? What had Obama done before 2008, that was more relevent to being POTUS than Romney's executive experience?

Spence, when you post here, you would do well to remember that we aren't all thoughtless lemmings.

P.S. If you don't htiunk that executive experience in the business world makes him qualified, how about his executive experience in the political world? The man was governor of Massachusetts.

Come on. What's the beef with someone being successful...honestly. Aren't you tired of ripping successful people. This is the USA for cripes sake. We are flush with successful people. Land of opportunity remember. This BS about "he/she makes more money than me (or is more successful than me) and I want some of if" has to go. Wah, wah, wah...Boo frickity whoo! Try this... get a job, start at the bottom, work your ass off...voila! That's what my wife and I did. Married at 22. Moved into an apartment with my belongings in a shoebox and $500 from our wedding. I'm not rich by any means but we saved for a modest house...raised two great kids...and socked a little coin away for the golden years and maybe a new reel. No handouts from anyone...been working our butts off (and paying our share of income taxes) since we were 16. See it can be done! Success!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Romney was spewing a ton of BS and Obama was stunned by it - in a debate - by a boring moderator - then maybe he should remove himself from consideration for not being up to task. That was a debate, it wasn't a meeting with skilled leaders from across the world in a Yalta like moment.

"What's the beef with someone being successful"

The liberal beef with success/wealth is based on the liberal lie that wealth is finite, meaning that the more money the rich have, the less there is for the rest of us. The fact that that notion is demonstrably false does not matter to these people.

Liberalism depends upon making large enough numbers of people feel that the government, and only the government, is capable of fairly distributing the limited wealth that's out there.

Liberals don't want people to know this simnple truth...want to be self-sufficient for life? Get B's in high school, go to a state university and major in nursing or physical therapy. There. You are self sufficient for life, if you are willing to work hard. Guaranteed middle-class lifestyle that's within reach of 95% of Americans, IF YOU ARE WILLING to work a bit and be show some responsibility.

To the people who bash the successful/wealthy...rich people are not the problem. If you want to identify the problem, chances are you'll see it by looking in the mirror.

My only disagreement here is that its called "socialism" , not "liberalism".

Saltheart, whatever you want to call it, it's a pillar of Obama's core beliefs.

You guys are funny...

The vast majority of Democrats and even most progressives are capitalists any way you cut it. Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close.

-spence

Slightly more regulations and limited constraints you say...how about close to 40 percent of what my wife and I make a year. That's not so funny!

Looking at economics globally...yes, slightly more.

-spence

"Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close."

But believing that the feds are entitled to anywhere near half of what anyone earns in a year, does make one a socialist.

Believeing that the solution to our problems is taxation, makes one a socialist.

Believing these things, despite the fact that they have a failure ratre of 100%, makes one an idiot.

Limited restraints on the economy or free markets may not make you a socialist but an agenda that survives only because he promises the redistribution of wealth certainly does make you a socialist.


Now I can respect the ideals of a truly devoted socialist but a guy who promotes the redistribution of wealth only to pander to a segment of voters he must have above all other voting segments to get reelected is a phony politician.

I'd much prefer the guy who says we should all be able to make our own decisions about how we want to redistribute our wealth and not be forced to by government mandate (taxes). Romney says you should have a choice as to what you do with your money then gives millions and millions of his money to charity willingly. That's the kind of guy we want for President!

President Obama's remark about redistribution was in the context of ensuring everybody has a shot, but praised innovation and competition as being critical to the economy.

It's quite possible that without a redistributive system -- that all parties have implicitly endorsed for decades -- we wouldn't have a middle class.

I'd think if any of us had tens of millions of dollars we'd be just as charitable. It's easy to give away millions when you don't need any of it.

-spence

Then why is it necessary to progressively tax the rich at higher and higher amounts? Let them spend or give away their money as they choose, and the results will be far more varied, productive, and sustaining than forced government redistribution.