Sounds like there was a monumental ass kicking in Denver last night

[Dave Gray]

3) Obama saying that AARP supported Obamacare (they strongly denied that today)

They did support it.  Today, they didn't deny that.  They just didn't like their name being used politically, as if they were fully supporting Obama.

[Fau Teixeira]

Obama lost the debate again, he lost all his debates against hillary in the primaries 4 years ago and he lost all the debates against mccain 4 years ago .. my question  is .. so what?

statistically speaking debates are irrelevant when it comes to moving opinion.

People in general have a massive case of confirmation bias, people supporting romney won't budge over something a secretly muslim socialist kenyan says and people supporting obama won't budge over anything a flip flopping etch-a-sketch magic underwear liar says.

That's the reality of this debate.

[Fau Teixeira]

just on the facts of the debate (not that facts matter in debates) but just for the sake of discussion, romney was either making them up on the spot, or was trying to play word games about what "lower" and "taxes" mean.

[Cathal]

I'm sure you could just go to some site like politifact.com and check out everything. I didn't watch the debate but a friend of mine was streaming it over XBOX live and he said they had real-time politifact pop-ups that would tell you the lies/truths being spoken. Interesting. I read that most of what Romney said was a lie, but I'm sure Obama had his fair share of it as well. I'm not voting for either of them, as I'll just vote for a 3rd party since I think they're both quite bad.

[CF DolFan]

I read that most of what Romney said was a lie,

I've read that and keep hear that too. The funny thing is it's all liberals who are saying it just as I argued before the debates that what liberals keep saying was false.  Many things keep getting said by Romney through Obama's team yet I haven't heard Romney say it.

From CNN money today about the facts ...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney was a fire hose of fiscal issues that nonetheless left many questions unresolved.

Romney did try to answer one unequivocally: He said he will not cut taxes for the rich.
"I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals," Romney said. A few breaths later: "All right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."

But how he'll keep that promise is still not clear.

The issue of how much the rich pay in taxes is a touchy one for Romney. He is one of the richest people ever to seek the job of president, and his own taxes have been fodder for Obama and his proxies for months now.

Romney has said he will slash income tax rates for everyone -- including the rich -- by 20%.

But he has also promised to pay for his tax reform plan, which is estimated to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over a decade. One way he says he would do so is by reducing tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the rich.

Earlier this week, Romney suggested one way to limit the tax breaks is to cap everyone's itemized deductions at $17,000. While that would certainly reduce the value of deductions for the rich, it's no guarantee that many still wouldn't get a net tax cut given Romney's promise to cut today's tax rates by 20%.

For example, someone with $1 million in taxable wage income subject to today's top rate of 35% would save $70,000 if that rate drops to 28%. If that same person also normally takes $100,000 in itemized deductions, he would lose about $23,240 in tax savings if those deductions are capped at $17,000.

In other words, his net tax cut would be $46,760 ($70,000 minus $23,240).

The Romney campaign, however, has also told CNNMoney that if Romney were to adopt such a cap on itemized deductions it would be paired with still-to-be-determined limits on personal exemptions and the tax-free benefit workers enjoy when their employer helps pay for their health insurance.

Depending where those limits are set, they could wipe out the tax savings above. Or they may not. It's impossible to say without further details.


Then in last night's debate, Romney suggested the deduction cap could be set at $25,000 or $50,000 instead of $17,000. That would change the math, too.

Then there's the issue of semantics.

Romney's promise to "not reduce the share" of taxes paid by the rich is not necessarily the same as saying the tax bills of some high-income filers wouldn't go down. It means that what high-income filers as a group contribute as a percentage of total revenue would be the same as it is today.

On top of that, of course, it's not clear where Romney would draw the line on high-income.

What last night's debate showed is that Romney continues to promise that his tax plan will not reduce the taxes paid by the rich -- either as a group or as individuals. What it did not clarify was how exactly he plans to ensure that. 

I don't know how you spell out exact details of any plan in two minutes. I know Obama continually went over three minutes the other night but even still, that isn't enough either.

My question is this. Who the heck cares what rich people pay as long as they themselves are getting a fair break to succeed? I don't get that "coveting" philosophy at all. 

[Brian Fein]

I'm not voting for either of them, as I'll just vote for a 3rd party since I think they're both quite bad.

You may as well stay home and stay in bed then because your vote literally will not count.

[Cathal]

^^^ Oh, I know. Two things: I didn't want to be labeled as "the problem" by those who voted and I didn't; and the only way to get another party involved is by having more and more people every election voting for a 3rd party. I doubt it would happen anytime soon. This is only the third election I would be able to vote in.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't know how you spell out exact details of any plan in two minutes.

You don't have to.  You can spell out the exact details in a memo released by the campaign to the media.  It can be any length you like.  Until he does that he doesn't have a plan.  To quote Walter Mondale, quoting Wendy's to Hart.  "Where's the beef?"

[Dave Gray]

I agree with Chris Matthews and don't like the word "lie" because it ends the conversation.

But that said, the two big things I see from Romney are the 20% tax drop for everyone (including wealthy) -- he says he won't do that.  On the trail and on his website, it says he will.

The other thing is that he says his plan does cover pre-existing condition.  IT DOES NOT.  Fact.  His campaign even admitted that he "misspoke" when answering that question.

[bsmooth]

From what I heard is that he would cut actual taxes on everyone and lower the exemptions, deductions, and loopholes so that it evens out to everyone still paying the about the same. But I could be wrong.

And when asked repeatedly what deductions he would get rid of and how he would fund it, he has nothing. When you start talking about getting rid of deductions, everyone starts getting nervous.

[bsmooth]

Concerning Romney's 'lies'. Here is a great article about one of his comments and the 'truthiness' of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/1004/Presidential-debate-101-Is-Romney-right-about-716-billion-in-Medicare-cuts

[badger6]

Concerning Romney's 'lies'. Here is a great article about one of his comments and the 'truthiness' of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/1004/Presidential-debate-101-Is-Romney-right-about-716-billion-in-Medicare-cuts

Quote from the end of the article:

"In the end, Obama really is cutting $716 billion from Medicare, that's true."

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

[Sunstroke]

Yeah, cuz even if everything he said had a mathematical proof of its truth, you'd be moved.

I haven't seen anything nearly as tangible as math come out of Romney's mouth. All I've heard is how we should trust that he'll do a better job than Obama did.  The "please don't think about this" underneath all that rhetoric is the simple and indisputable fact that the Republican party spent the last four years in the most overt and concerted act of political sabotage in the history of the two-party political system, just so they could come back in 4 years and say "see how bad he did?"and get back into office again.

You're as dogmatic as they come.

My dog wouldn't even vote for Romney...

Bottom line...Until I can look at a Republican candidate without thinking "This elitist piece of shit wants the rich to get richer and the Church to dictate how I live my life," I cannot consider voting for them.  Intolerance of others and adherence to an antique work of fiction holds no appeal to me.

[Fins4ever]

The only other country that I can think of that pays for TV stations is Cuba. LOL Govt. has no business supporting PBS or any other TV station. PBS makes millions on merchandise sales. those