Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

JaysRage (81.73)

My take on the debate



October 04, 2012 – Comments (18)

For the record, I have voted Republican in every election since I came to voting age 19 years ago.   I had been considering moving in a different direction due to uncertainty about the qualifications and plans of the current Republican candidate.   I went into last night's debate wanting to hear Governor Romney explain his tax proposal, because I had heard so many different takes on it that I really didn't understand what he was trying to accomplish.    I also wanted to see how Romney presented himself on a national stage.   Was he "Presidential"?  


I've heard quite a few people say that they didn't learn anything new.   Well, I did.   I went in extremely skeptical on Romney's tax plan and what he is trying to accomplish and came out with a pretty clear understanding of what he is proposing and why.

He proposes lower base rates coinciding with decreased allowable deductions in an attempt to keep tax rates neutral for the middle but effectively decrease tax rates for small businesses that are tax-identified as individuals to stimulate small business growth.    I find it to be a particularly unique approach to revenue creation.     Will it be effective?   I'm not sure.   Is it feasible and implementable?   I'm not sure.     How will this affect me personally?    I'm not sure.   At an aggregate, people like me will be kept whole....but could I personally pay slightly more and someone like me pays slightly less, depending on their typical deductions....yeah, I could see that.     However, I understand the construct, and I also understand that Romney is purposely not creating the detail required to create a bill.   He is creating a construct for an overhaul that can be fine-tuned as a part of legislative creation.    

It is not unlike what Obama did with ObamaCare.  

However, when push came to shove, Obama essentially let Pelosi craft the legislative details of Obamacare, resulting in a non-compromise partisan bill that passed despite a strong unified partisan resistance.   Romney promises more deal-making and compromise.   Obama promised the same thing 4 years ago and took a hard veer left upon election, essentially allowing Pelosi to take the reigns.   Is Romney more trustworthy?   Can he help to roll back the extreme partisan politics that have marked the past four years of Obama's presidency?   Will he be more involved in legislative creation than Obama was?  Can he lead better than Obama did?    Could he be worse?  

It was pretty clear to me that Obama didn't understand Romney's proposals.   His counter-points consistently showed a misunderstanding of even the basic construct of Romney's plan.  I think it would be fair of Obama to hammer Romney in future debates about the implementability of such a plan, but his tired lines of "this is just the same old trickle-down plan" and "$5 trillion tax cut" underscore the fact that Obama doesn't understand Romney's plan at all.   There are built-in risks and unknowns with Romney's plan that can and should be attacked by Obama, but he did not do that.   Why?   He seemed unprepared.   I'm hoping that Obama does those things in the next debate, because I want to know that Obama is literate enough on the economy to understand his opponent's proposals, and I'm interested in how Romney responds.   


I thought the negativity in this particular debate was kept to a minimum....the focus on ideas and records, and Obama had a very difficult time defending his record or articulating the value of his new ideas.    


I thought that Romney looked quite a bit more "Presidential" than the President.    

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 04, 2012 at 3:21 PM, L0RDZ (88.09) wrote:

Nice take  Jay...


Report this comment
#2) On October 04, 2012 at 3:43 PM, L0RDZ (88.09) wrote:

The debate seemed like  one between an adult and a child.

Lets keep in mind that Obama's real world experience is extremely lacking.

He's come  from a live off the gov-ment mentality his entire life.  Unaware of  what it takes to actually  get a job outside of the governmental influence and without governmental demands &  coercion.

It's obvious Obama was unable or unprepared to seriously debate  Romney.

What I saw a  huge smile  on  one person's face and the look of getting owned on the others.


Report this comment
#3) On October 04, 2012 at 5:08 PM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

My take is quite different.  I've heard enough spin and rhetoric during decades worth of elections I watched.

Under Bush (a Republican) I saw the stock market crash and give back a decade's worth of gains.  Under Obama I have seen the stock market more than double.  Massive monthly job losses stopped and turned positive.  A housing market that seems to be settling down and turning around. A financial system shored up and back on safer footing.  Oh and did I mention the stock market having more than doubled?

Romney has given me no reason to throw all these turnaround plays out the window by gambling on someone beholden to the "Taylor" machine.

I found it amusing hearing pundits calling today's 10 point S&P rally a "Romney" rally despite the fact that it has gone up 785 points under Obama.

Report this comment
#4) On October 04, 2012 at 5:26 PM, L0RDZ (88.09) wrote:


The market has gone up in spite of Obama....  The manipulation of the  Treasury and the FED RESERVE  has more to do with the markets recovering than anything Obama has done.

Despite QE to infinity  and over spending money (trillions) like drunken sailors at a brothel  that is providing free viagra to all paying clients...

The so called recovery  is  like nothing compared to previous recoveries.  If  you want to call this a  recovery ?  with real unemployment  much closer  to  20%  than  8%.

Who ran congress under Bush ?  exactly  at what year in the new presidential administration do we stop blaming previous presidents and start taking accountability  for what we have done or squandered during the time someone is in office.

How many terms is it gonna take ?  Lets say Obama does win another term ?  what can we expect ?  more of the same ?

Can we expect  the political guru  of  Biden to seek presidential office ? 

I remember the reasoning for selecting him (Biden) was to give some credibility to the  one time senator. WOW what comical  words come out of his mouth.  What a joke on the american tax payers.


Report this comment
#5) On October 05, 2012 at 3:16 AM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

Lordz, except Obama had appointed and re-appointed Bernanke. Romeny won't.  I think that Bernanke deserves tremendous kudos, although libertarians might disagree. I said so years ago.  In my opinion his actions prevented a major collapse of the whole system.

But stop comparing this recovery to others.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  Show me where we were on the brink of total financial collapse aside from the Great Depression. You think in light of the current demographics (something I warned about years ago on this site) that it is comparable to say the 1980s?

I said it would take years for this to play out.  Go read all my blogs in 2009.  I remember when people were interpreting intererst rates will remain low for an extended period of time as half a year.  I said no, it will remain low for years. 

It has to. Why? Because you need to re-capitalize the banks and you need to keep sovereign and personal debt costs low. 

I don't want to hear the noise of Romney.  Woo hoo he was more aggressive than Obama in the first debate. But he still gave me no substance.

How many terms will it take?  Let me repeat YEARS.  Why? Because Bush so screwed up the system with Congress's blessing.  That the demographics are far different than any other time in history.  That there is no real catalyst to replace all those "fake" jobs that were lost.  I say "fake" because they were really temporary at best.

Things are slowly improving.  Give it a year or two and you will see the real estate market improving considerably.  But you go Romney and he will kill it with his proposal.  Then you will have that constantly threatened "double dip" recession.

Listen to me or not.  Events will play out as they will.

Report this comment
#6) On October 05, 2012 at 11:23 AM, L0RDZ (88.09) wrote:


Who's fault was it ??? 

If only we lived in parrallell mult-verse universes...  wouldn't it be interesting to see one in which say you can allow Barack to continue getting re-elected...

We could be in his 6 th term and we'd still be hearing from fools...  how it was all Bush's fault  and how he alone.... all alone...  managed to fubar everything up...

Now I'm not a Bush fan, they did make some comical shows based upon him, but  Obama  has made quite a mess himself,  along with many others.

Romney will kill it ???  wow...


Hey breaking news... everything is okay..... no one is unemployed anyone who wants a job can get one...  you just have to go to China...


Report this comment
#7) On October 05, 2012 at 2:40 PM, JaysRage (81.73) wrote:

I think there are a number of reasons for the recovery.   I give Bernake a lot of credit for what he has done.   I had not heard that Romney is looking to remove Bernake.   That would be worth looking into.    

Obama implemented a stimulus.   That's pretty much all that he has done with regards to the economy.   It's a stimulus that was universally agreed was necessary.    

To me, that was Obama's defining moment as an economist.   Republicans claimed that the Obama stimulus was little more than just a spending bill....that it did not target job growth.   Obama laughed and said...."well what do you think a stimulus is?".    Well, it CAN be an opportunity to create foundations for permanent job growth (by the way, some of the things that Obama is now getting around to proposing in his new platform three years later).   But in the case of this stimulus, did it do enough of that to merit Obama getting credit for it, or did it merely pump money temporarily into the economy and in some situations (90 billion for failed green energy companies) just dump it in the toilet.    If any stimulus would do, then Obama added no value.   If his particular stimulus was so impressive, please explain to me why.    In addition, I really am interested to hear what specifically Obama did to contribute to making this the right stimulus package, instead of just happening to be President at the time that it passed.  

Obama wants credit for the stimulus but he doesn't want credit for the debt that it created.   Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  

Report this comment
#8) On October 05, 2012 at 2:47 PM, JaysRage (81.73) wrote:

Confirmed that Romney doesn't want Bernake, despite his economic aide's recommendation that Bernake deserves consideration for job renewal in 2014.    I disagree that Bernake should be eliminated from consideration.    I would be interested to hear some reasoning from Romney on why he would not want to move forward with Bernake.    

Report this comment
#9) On October 05, 2012 at 7:37 PM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

Lordz of course it was Bush's fault.  It also was Clinton's for repealing Glass-Steagall.  And Congress (which included Obama back then). And Greenspan.  I blame all the regulators for sleeping at the wheel.  SEC, CFTC, AG.  I blame the banks for sloppy and reckless income verifications.  I blame the appraisers for their manipulation of appraisals.  I blame the mortgage brokers who only cared about churning.  I blame Wall Street for reckless greed in spinning off worthless products and giving themselves obscene bonus's while people were getting fired right and left.

I don't forget what it was like the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009.  There was pure panic. My portfolio was bleeding red. GE and GS had to go hat in hand to Buffett for cash. Really if it wasn't for Bernanke we would have had what Schiff always asks for, a total meltdown.

So please we are nowhere near that scenario now.  And I don't really want to go back there which is what Romney wants to do.  I give Obama some slack because the Taylor (Norquist) machine purposefully gridlocked Congress.  Kudlowites shout we need low taxes and you would have growth flying because the rich create jobs.  Well guess what we kept the damn taxes the same so stop the hypocrisy.  And also, finally Romney admitted that the small cap companies create the jobs in the long run not the rich guys.

I found it telling that when asked flat out if Romney would even do a $10 spending cut for a measely $1 revenue increase he wouldn't answer the question. Reagan would have jumped on that in a flash.  But Reagan didn't sign Norquist's pledge card, Romney did.  

Report this comment
#10) On October 05, 2012 at 8:00 PM, wolfman225 (48.99) wrote:

^Reagan did agree to just such a deal with the Democrat dominated Congress in the 80's.  Once.  The promised spending cuts never materialized.  In fact, there were some Dems in Congress at the time that boasted of the fact that they never had any intention of allowing the spending cuts to go through. 

It doesn't matter if the promised cuts are 3:1 or 10:1 if they never materialize.  And the increase in taxes always seems to come first, with the spending cuts "to be determined at a later date."

Report this comment
#11) On October 05, 2012 at 8:08 PM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

And Jay I thought the stimulus plan was nothing but a pork barrel  bill where everybody made a grab for a piece of the pie.  It did help states a little in closing budget gaps  I suppose.  I wanted, and blogged, that we should have come out of the gate with a massive real infrastructure bill concentrating on pushing nat gas for fuel.  We can still do it.

Something that kudlowites try to avoid talking about but Obama DID keep the taxes low and lowered them even more on the  payroll tax rate.

And the stock market has doubled.  And he supports Bernanke, the only guy in Washington trying his hardest to get things back on a roll.


Report this comment
#12) On October 05, 2012 at 8:13 PM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

It doesn't matter if the promised cuts are 3:1 or 10:1 if they never materialize.  And the increase in taxes always seems to come first, with the spending cuts "to be determined at a later date."

That's not the point.  The point is Romney bound himself to Norquist along with many other Republicans.  He didn't agree simply because he is under an oath not to do so. And the way he is trying to get around it is by saying he will lower the rates but do away with many exemptions.  This way he can say that "technically" he didn't raise tax rates.

Report this comment
#13) On October 06, 2012 at 1:40 AM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

I swear I will blow a fuse if I ever hear the phrase "common ground." I submit that anyone who uses that phrase is a con artist. "Common ground" is an excuse not to COMPROMISE, two drastically different things.  So in the future if you ever hear someone use that term "common ground" understand that they are trying to BS you.

Report this comment
#14) On October 06, 2012 at 10:23 AM, 1297US12 (< 20) wrote:

Republicans could care less about the "Working Class" and as long as the Oil Companys and Ultra Rich are running their party they never will.  According to Romney Exxon Mobil and the rest are "small business" and need a tax break. I was in business for 35 years in Michigan, in all those years I kept hearing about a tax break for the small business man but it never happened.

War is big business and republicans will keep going as long as they can make a buck no matter how many young American lives it will take in countries we don't give a crap about.

If you vote republican I hope you don't have to sacrifice your son or grandson so Chainey's family can get richer.

Report this comment
#15) On October 08, 2012 at 11:50 AM, JaysRage (81.73) wrote:

I think you have to be really careful when you criticize the "tax breaks" that are given to oil companies.   I used to be furious that oil companies got tax breaks at the same time that they were setting records for profits.   However, then I realized that the "tax breaks" were actually incentives that made it profitable to develop domestic oil that would have otherwise been unprofitable.    If it's not profitable, no company is going to drill, so the government gets NO tax revenue, and no jobs or revenue are created through drilling or oil services.    

By making it profitable to develop domestic oil, it lets the U.S. get a step closer to energy independence and it creates U.S. jobs.   Without the "tax breaks", the oil companies simply move on to other profitable endeavors, often overseas, creating jobs for other countries and increasing their GDP.   Oil companies have no incentive to develop unprofitable wells.    Even with "tax breaks", the government takes in significantly more revenue by encouraging domestic drilling than by ignoring it.  

This is one area where I think Obama has huge blinders on.  

His administration's approach to energy has dampened the economic recovery.   It's not just oil either.   The EPA's aggressive stance on decreasing carbon outputs are shadow-fighting a war against an environmental non-issue, and companies are again forced to spend money that could be used to create jobs.   

After all the arguments are put on the table, I'm still on the fence in this election.    I actually think Obama's tax plan is more appropriate in the short term, but I think he's got it wrong on all of the other economic issues.    I crave a Miller Lite "Let's have both".   

Report this comment
#16) On October 08, 2012 at 1:14 PM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

Well Romney's call to limit basic deductions was a game changer for me.  He is going to kill the housing market with that one and throw us right back into recession.  At least with Obama things have gotten better, albeit not as quick as one would hope, but considering the circumstances it is still an improvement.

And the stock market has doubled under him.

The rich will love Romney.  The middle class will pay for that.  His 47% comment was the real him.  What you saw at the debates was a performer.

Report this comment
#17) On October 09, 2012 at 10:27 AM, JaysRage (81.73) wrote:

Romney can't do any more damage to the housing market's lending process than the current loose money policy has.   With interest rates so cheap, banks have no incentive to lend money in order to make a profit.   They just take the free Fed money and plug it into the stock market for juiced up gains.   The entire lending process is broken because of the Fed actions.    

I'm not saying that it hasn't been the right approach, but let's not pretend that the Fed actions don't have consequences.  

The stock market is going up because of the Fed, not because of Obama.   It is called inflation.   

Report this comment
#18) On October 09, 2012 at 11:28 AM, awallejr (57.04) wrote:

Listen I am in the real estate business and I am telling you that the banks ARE lending.  They just aren't lending to people who either can't afford to pay it back or are in the underground economy and can't therefore prove their income.  But if you have a verifiable job, borrowing within your means and the house appraises you can get a loan.  It just takes longer now because of all the layoffs and the redundancies in the process.  But don't say they aren't lending, they are.

As for inflation I have been hearing this for years.  Where is it?  2% a year on core is horrible?  Oil? It is basically where it has been for years, around $90 a barrel and I can see that falling because we will overproduce in fracking like we did with nat gas.  Iran is the black swan here.

Food?  Yes we had a drought but go look at GSG or DBC for the last 5 years.

Bernanke helped because he came out in 2009 and said he would not let the major banks fail.  That stopped the fall.  The companies then cut costs, raised cash and started to grow their revenues. Obama kept taxes at Bush levels and even lowered the payroll tax by 2% points and exteneded unemployment insurance for all those fired workers.  

When Bernanke first began QE1, all the bears were crying inflation inflation.  You had Marc Farber predicting hyperinflation for 2009 or 2010.  The market doubling had nothing to do with inflation.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners