Romney wins first presidential debate on Xbox Live

Microsoft has released live poll stats from its first streamed presidential debate, and says Romney came out gaining support.

70

Whether for the interest in politics or just wanting free Avatar armor, the Xbox Live airing of the presidential debates drew in plenty of users. Microsoft has revealed a few statistics from its live polls, and just as the reaction from pundits and politicos, Romney came out on top.

IGN reports that 11% of the voters identified themselves as undecided, and 17% said they were leaning toward President Obama or Republican candidate Mitt Romney. In 9 out of 10 questions, Romney exceeded his baseline of support, while Obama suffered the inverse with 8 out of 10 questions losing support. 88% of respondents said they are "likely voters" and 69% said they will "definitely talk" to people about the election. Microsoft said that the daily polls have attracted roughly 10,000 users, and that the debate polls "far exceeded this number."

Three more debates are set for this presidential election, all of which will be similarly streamed on Xbox Live. The vice presidential candidates take the stage on October 11. The presidential candidates will spar town hall-style over foreign and domestic policy on October 16, and then discuss foreign policy alone on October 22.

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    October 5, 2012 9:30 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Romney wins first presidential debate on Xbox Live.

    Microsoft has released live poll stats from its first streamed presidential debate, and says Romney came out gaining support.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 9:58 AM

      Yes and I'm sure the the inexperienced and/or biased moderator had nothing to do with him "winning". But hey people are actually so stupid they can't see something simple like that influencing the debate anyway. 'murica

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:18 AM

        Everything about that debate sucked, including the candidates, but Romney managed to appear like he sucked less. I'm sure it won't appear that way in the next two.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 10:58 AM

          The next debate is a Town Hall format and includes foreign policy, so in theory it's better suited to Obama's strengths. He did quite well in the TH debate against McCain last time.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 11:02 AM

            Mitt will come out swinging for the fences again. He will edit things as necessary. Even extremely recent things.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19840876

            his handlers have done a spectacular job in seeding the messages. he has a very very VERY short leash on and that's going to work out extremely well. if he has to go off message or think on his own, he'll probably pass out on stage.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 11:12 AM

              "Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you are going to say something that doesn't come out right," Mr Romney said.

              I love how a statement that you expound upon for a few minutes as the central theme of a fundraiser answer is a misstatement that just happens.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:23 AM

        You can blame a million factors, but Jim Lehrer being an "inexperienced and/or biased moderator" can't really be one of them - the guy's done 12 prez debates, including Obama ones before.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 10:31 AM

          IAWTP

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 10:41 AM

          did you even watch the debate? he sure as shit came across as inexperienced.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 10:44 AM

            It was PBS and their conservative bias!

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 10:45 AM

            yeah, i watched it. read up on the new debate format and Lehrer's comments for some insight.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 10:46 AM

              and you still think he did a good job?

              • reply
                October 5, 2012 10:51 AM

                did I say he did a good job? I'm just saying that if you're going to claim inexperience you should point to someone that hasn't moderated 12 presidential debates. He's probably the most experienced for whatever that's worth.

                • reply
                  October 5, 2012 10:53 AM

                  while he may be the most experienced, he didn't display any proof of it on wednesday.

                  • Ebu
                    reply
                    October 5, 2012 11:35 AM

                    I get what Mr Baggins is saying, and he's correct, but yea...he didn't come across as very pro :/

                    • reply
                      October 5, 2012 12:05 PM

                      man I gotta get rid of this handle from the 80's.

                      • Ebu
                        reply
                        October 5, 2012 1:17 PM

                        Wear your badge of shame with pride!

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 11:00 AM

            I think he is just getting too old to really manage it.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 11:31 AM

            supposedly it was a new format.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 11:50 PM

              liked new format, thought moderator did well, don't get it

              • reply
                October 6, 2012 12:55 AM

                You don't think that a moderator should... well... moderate the debate?

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:43 AM

        lol

      • rms
        reply
        October 5, 2012 10:57 AM

        Lehrer is neither, and his job was to do little more than watch the time and ask the initial question. But Mittens! Going from dismissing half the country to becoming Man Of The People Mitt, reaching across the aisle and embracing MA Democrats to enact, well...Obamacare, is such a breathtaking, swooping mid-air 180 Immelman. No wonder Obama's head was spinning.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 11:08 AM

          It really is an impressive work of bipartisanship that Mitt somehow convinced Democrats, Massachusetts Democrats no less, to enact an expensive new social program.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:59 AM

        What got me was not just Lehrer's complete inability to control the debate, but the terrible questions. On the topic of regulation and the role of government, he simply asked Romney "do you think there is too much regulation?" What kind of topic is that? Ask something specific. And it's domestic policy but he didn't touch social issues at all, only jobs and the economy.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 11:22 AM

          They also didn't talk about energy, climate, gun laws, or anything else that would fall under Domestic Policy

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 11:23 AM

        Give me a break. Obama, one of the most charismatic and savvy men in recent politics, cannot overcome an inexperienced moderator?!

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 11:37 AM

          Charismatic and savvy man who hasn't debated anyone in 4 years, vs Romney who just ran through a gauntlet of 22 debates this year. I don't think Romney winning on style points was terribly unexpected, even if us Romney-haters hoped Obama would step on his neck.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 11:48 AM

            Yeah it's a guy who has been doing nothing but debating and preparing for years now versus a guy who is running the country during an economic downturn for years now.

            Hopefully Obama will do better in the next two, if for no other reason than to shut up the pundits.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 12:31 PM

              I think it's widely known that Obama chose not to focus on his debate prep. For the next one, Obama is making a big effort to spend more time rehearsing. The excuse that he doesn't have the time doesn't really hold up.

              • reply
                October 5, 2012 12:43 PM

                I think it's widely known that Obama chose not to focus on his debate prep.

                link?

                • reply
                  October 5, 2012 12:46 PM

                  it's all over fox news the prez is super lazy and stuff

                • reply
                  October 5, 2012 3:31 PM

                  Dude you of all people know this. I think you just want to test my ability to copy and paste links into the shack :p The main stories I read all talked about how Romney has been practicing A LOT, therefore Obama practiced less (CNN article on portman) and also the latest news that Obama is setting up a new camp in VA, specifically because that level of effort was something he didn't do last time.

                  Plus he was on the View that one day (insert outrage)

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 12:33 PM

        If the President of the United States can't overcome Jim fucking Lehrer then he deserves the thrashing he got.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 12:39 PM

          Haha but he only got to speak for 4 minutes more! It's just not fair

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 1:21 PM

        yeah, blame the ref for a 45-7 loss

      • reply
        October 6, 2012 12:03 AM

        you really don't know who jim lehrer is?

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 10:33 AM

      I found it interesting how Jim wouldnt stop Romney from rambling past 2 min but be VERY stern in stopping Obama after his 2 minutes... Was a pretty one sided debate on the moderators end... Jim seemed a little more abrasive in stopping Mitt once Mitt mentioned that he would cut PBS... Therefore taking JOBS AWAY IN AMERICA.... but hey... thats ok isnt it ?

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:55 AM

        I can't recall any other debate where one of the participants threatened to fire the moderator.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 10:11 PM

          Golf time = time for debate practice. Or he could have done it when he skipped all those intel briefs.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 10:38 PM

          That did feel odd, but he had to.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 12:56 PM

        Yet even with all that unfairness Obama ended up getting 4 minutes more talk time than Romney did. By the way PBS will survive.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 12:58 PM

        Are you just willfully ignoring the fact Obama had more speaking time than Romney?

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 1:11 PM

        He wasn't stern on Obama, Obama was polite and listened to him. He was trying to make a point of being more kind, but it partially backfired on him because he came off as weak.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 3:57 PM

        You'd make a great politician with those kind of facts.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 10:39 AM

      I can't stand all the politics BS, but do people actually vote based on who they think wins the debates?!

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:55 AM

        Historically speaking, not really.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 12:08 PM

          What about Nixon/JFK, Reagan( TV-Main), Clinton ( TV-Democrat Debates )

          I think all four of those Presidents were greatly helped by their debating. The most recent example being Clinton where he was a no-name where he defeated his Democratic opponents to get the nomination because of his superb debating skills. Three of the four I listed were huge underdogs ( JFK exception ), until their debates ( party and national ) helped boost their campaigns.

          If we're talking about Pre WW2, that's a different story, but it was a different country.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 1:55 PM

            Reagan lost the first debate to Mondale

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 2:03 PM

              yeah but i think he's talking about the debate with carter, before he was president

              • reply
                October 5, 2012 2:04 PM

                either way i don't know what point that makes, there doesn't seem to be any kind of predictable outcome based on these debates

              • reply
                October 5, 2012 2:34 PM

                Reagan was already pulling away from Carter when they got around to debating, but it probably solidified things.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 11:02 AM

        That's asking the wrong question. Do people look at who won a debate and say "k, guess I better vote for him'? Of course not. But listening to a debate and saying "I agree with what Candidate A says" might sway their vote and incidentally show Candidate A as having won the debate.

        In short, treat polls as an effect not a cause.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 11:51 AM

          I can't help but wonder if Obama was standing up there thinking "everything he's saying is lies and bullshit but me just telling him he's full of shit won't help when it's only a 90 minute debate. I need to let him just keep spewing it and then let the press figure out how much of what he says is bullshit."

          Whether or not that was a good tactic is debatable (no pun intended)

          I really wish Obama had more proof of that "tax break for offshoring" bit because when Romney said he had never heard of it Obama could say "well that proves how out of touch you are with even the basics of a business even when you were running it."

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 12:10 PM

            The real missed opening was Romney's last line on that which was "I'll have to get a new accountant". Obama could have easily said "so you are admitting you sent jobs overseas".

            Given how quickly Team Obama put out rather hard-hitting ads about Romney's misstatements in the debates, I am starting to wonder if Obama's strategy was to let Romney hang himself from his own petard, but only they know for sure.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 12:38 PM

            He doesn't have proof for it because it doesn't exist. He was just woefully unprepared, I'm surprised at how many excuses people are making for him. His team said they are going to be better prepared for the next one, so we'll see.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 12:42 PM

            The "tax break for offshoring" is because you can deduct the cost of relocating jobs to other countries. However, it's not a special tax break, it's a general ability to write off the cost of doing business, of which job relocations is one thing.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 3:34 PM

              I know what it is. The point is that it's not specifically a tax break for off shoring and he should have been prepared to defend or explain it to the audience. if you bring something up, you better have a comeback.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 12:46 PM

            David Plouffe (I believe) said on NPR this morning that the Obama campaign intentionally prepared NOT to bring up Romney's flip-flops because the campaign was concerned that doing so would consume the entire debate, and they would be unable to get any other message across.

            He said they would probably consider talking about it in future debates.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 10:04 PM

            Do you really not think both of them are liars? The left likes to attack Romney for shipping jobs overseas... have you looked at the stimulus bills and all the money/jobs they sent overseas?

            U.S. tax code's treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the USA — transfers that often don't happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in "undistributed earnings" parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. -USA Today

            "While President Obama appointed Jeffrey Immelt the Chairman of Jobs and Competitiveness, his company enjoyed a tax free year. GE made 5.1 billion dollars profit in the USA last year 2010 and pays no taxes. Worldwide GE made 14.2 billion dollars and while headquartered in the US paid not one cent of taxes.

            Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/overhauling-corporate-taxes/#ixzz28Ua1AEUY"

            Welcome to Chicago politics... just Obama cannot get Romney kicked off the ticket.

            • reply
              October 5, 2012 10:09 PM

              This is called hypocrisy, not lying. You're conflating the two. Obama criticizes Romney for shipping job overseas because it's an effective attack and then hires a guy who does the same thing.

              By the way, Obama doesn't write the tax code. He wants to give tax breaks to corporations that hire American workers. It's up to Congress to pass that into law.

              • reply
                October 6, 2012 6:52 AM

                No I am not conflating the two. If you are speaking out against the action of shipping jobs overseas and at the same time supporting that practice with the claim you're putting an end to that.. that is a lie.

                I understand Obama doesn't write the tax code however who has to sign something into law? That would be the President. So just as Bush gets the blame for everything that happened under him while he was President, the same applies to Obama.

                • reply
                  October 6, 2012 4:25 PM

                  What policies is Obama supporting that ship jobs overseas? He's spent hundreds of billions on infrastructure spending and investments in clean energy in the United States. Plus, he has given and wants to keep giving tax credits to companies that employ people in the U.S.

                  The only "change" in the tax code while Obama has been president has been the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which was a deal he struck to get an extension of unemployment benefits, repeal of DADT, and agreement to the START treaty.

                  Also, I don't blame Bush for everything that happened while he was president, just as I don't blame Obama for everything that happened while he was president. The president has a lot of power, but Congress has even more.

                  • reply
                    October 6, 2012 9:40 PM

                    What policies? You may want to look into the Stimulus money that the Obama administration gave to GE... whom then shipped jobs overseas... Don't worry GE"s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, serves on Obama's "Economic Recovery Advisory Board". The Huffington Post quickly points out this problem. So that's an easy to answer question.

                    Repeal of DADT? Who cares... So now you can be openly gay but you now are openly denied the benefits of a heterosexual couple. Awesome. Let me know when he actually gives homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

                    The START treaty.. the purpose of which is to reduce the threat of nuclear arms... while we watch Iran develop that capability. Useless. Is that the same treaty where Obama sold out our allies' secrets to Russia as far as their capabilities?

                    An extension of unemployment benefits... sounds great. Would be better if people had the benefits of being employed.

                    You may not blame Bush but that's Obama's fall back line. Oh he came into a mess. Yes he did. Yes Congress is supposed to have more power than the executive branch. However the President is the Leader, not Congress. It is his job to get things rolling and he his party held the majority for his first two years in the House and Senate. He could have passed anything he wanted to.

                    Of course we have Libya, where he didn't ask permission to use the military (which is allowed) however he did go over the 90 days... no biggie. We are expanding military operations in Africa. What the heck was up with the story the WH released about the 9/11 attack on our Ambassador? Apparently that story has quickly fallen apart....

                    Afghanistan has completely gone to hell. He "surged" with 30k troops, only to announce when they would be leaving prior to them ever arriving. That's brilliant.

                    To his credit he did give the green light to allow DEVGRU to kill OBL. Of which he then screwed up the story, didn't allow anytime to possibly exploit any intel, they leaked the unit that carried out the strike, etc. Great day for US intel/military which was unfortunately fumbled quickly for a political spiking. Remember the WH story where they lost video for 30 min? Nevermind they wear helmet cams.. (of which even some of us regular forces wear them, which are very clear and probably not as high of quality).


                    • reply
                      October 7, 2012 7:52 PM

                      I'm not sure why you expanded this discussion of hypocricy of shipping job overseas to a discussion of every single thing you don't like about Obama, but I'll take you on point by point anyway.

                      G.E. received $25 million of stimulus money, which is approximately .003125% of the overall stimulus.

                      Who cares about the repeal of DADT? How about every gay or lesbian service member who can now openly serve? You'd have to be completely insensitive to their plight under DADT to not understand how this is an important change. Obama has done more for LGBTs than any other president in American history. As soon as he has a willing Congress, I'm sure he will advance their cause more.

                      There's really no relationship between the START treaty and Iran. The U.S. and Russia have enough to destroy the world ten times over. Bilateral disarmament makes the world safer, plain and simple.

                      I judge presidents by what they do and don't do, not by what they can't do. If Obama can't get Congress to agree to his proposals, he is not at fault unless he does something to hinder compromise. When he had a majority, he passed an incredible amount of legislation. Obama got more done in two years than Bush did in six. Whether you like what he did is a completely different issue. But to say he was ineffective is demonstrably false.

                      Umm... Libya... don't see how this is relevant.

                      If you have any suggestions for helping Afghanistan, I'd love to hear them. There seems to be a consensus in American political circles that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

                      Would anyone not spike the football? I believe there was a loss of signal that caused the video feed to go out for 30 minutes.

                      Anyway, these tangential points get away from your central argument that Obama attacks Romney for shipping jobs overseas and then does the same thing. Well, that's true at all. Your G.E. point is small potatoes. The vast majority of Obama's policies (stimulus, extension of unemployment benefits, tax reductions) all have gone towards creating American jobs. Furthermore, jobs getting shipped overseas is an inevitable result of our economic system. Globalization isn't going away.

                      • reply
                        October 8, 2012 10:15 AM

                        G.E received $25 million (well I believe just shy of that) in stimulus money... and your defense is well that was just a small fraction of the stimulus so that's okay? Of course this is not even getting into G.E. paying no taxes...

                        As soon as he has a willing Congress? His party had control for 2 years... removing the DADT does one thing... lets you openly serve as a second class citizen. If he wants to do something for LGBT's then give them the same rights/benefits as straight couples. Currently if you're openly gay in the military you can bring your spouse to family functions but you aren't awarded a housing allowance like a straight married couple.

                        Yes Iran is not part of START and the idea of only being able to blow up the world three times over is better? Excusing missing the big picture that it wouldn't take Russia or the USA to spark the match.. just if we could find some country that openly wants to wipe another off the map.

                        Libya: relevance... a misguided foreign policy. Apologizing and trying to shift the blame/cover up AQ attacks does not help. There will come a time when people need to understand it doesn't matter if we bomb every Muslim country or simply pull back completely to the CONUS. A sitting President that covers up the killing of a US ambassador should be removed.

                        If you want a few tips on Afghanistan here ya go: Allow the US to be more aggressive. The troop surge should have been more and also for a longer period, the greatest cost associated with the surge is moving the gear in/out of the country. In Iraq the surge worked because we setup all over the place in COPs, PBs, FOBs that acted like little stations for faster response. In Afghanistan we don't do that in most places. We did in Sangin, we didn't in Washier or other areas that allow the enemy freedom of movement. It's very simple. The people in those villages are not fans of the Taliban/AQ, they aren't fans of us either. However the difference is they know we won't be there every night to protect them and allow them to develop anything and thus are forced to assist the Taliban out of fear of retribution.

                        Obama's party controlled Congress for two years. If he can't convince his own party then there are certainly problems. He has been ineffective outside of pushing Obamacare through Congress in which they apparently didn't even have time to read it. He has been a grossly ineffective President and that fact is shown that he isn't running off of his own "feats" but rather it's Bush's fault or attacking Romney. If you want to attack Romney that is certainly more than fair however to not be able to show anything great you've done.. that is telling.

                        Would anyone not spike the football? Well I'd like to think some would have enough sense to wait before doing so to be able to exploit any intel gathered during the raid. That's just a common sense move. The helmet cams they wear aren't sending sat signals, they are recorded. If you believe that all of their helmet cams blacked out for 30 minutes then I don't know what to tell you. Again the WH has fumbled the story to the point it was absurd. Not slight changes but rather huge differences in the stories being told.

                        Yes I realize globalization isn't going away and shipping jobs overseas is part of business and not by default a terrible thing. However a few small potatoes here and there quickly add up. The stimulus has not created the jobs, not even close, to what was claimed especially for the amount of money spent when it was the reason for it. Extension of unemployment benefits does not create jobs by any means. Tax reductions I do agree help create jobs and is something Obama is against and has actually countered through Obamacare. I believe the last estimates I have heard have 6 million uninsured people (whom I'm guessing are middle/lower class as I don't know many rich people without insurance) getting an additional $700 to $2000 in taxes.

                        Also bringing up tax reductions are you not aware they are supposed to jump this coming Jan (post election of course). Including cutting the child tax credit in half, return of a potentially brutal "death tax", tax brackets going up in % (the lowest bracket, currently at a 10% rate has the biggest % jump to 15% oddly enough). Investing will get hit by higher taxes, if you save money you're dividends will jump from being taxed at a current 15% to nearly 40%.

                        The government has proven itself (no matter who is in charge) to be irresponsible with our money. Never mind we are a consumer driven economy and now will have less money to spend to buy things which I am sure will be fantastic for jobs.

                        • reply
                          October 8, 2012 11:40 AM

                          Can Obama do anything right, in your view? He signs a bill that invests hundreds of billions in infrastructure and new technology... not good enough because $25 million went to a company that employs 150,000 Americans also sent some jobs overseas. DADT, a significant improvement for the lives of every LGBT, isn't good enough because it doesn't also give marriage equality, which also totally unpassable in Congress, even with a Democratic majority. Ending the enforcement of DOMA apparently doesn't matter, either. Removing 1/3 of Russia's and America's nuclear arms stockpile... not significant because it's not ALL nuclear weapons. Doing everything within reason to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (economic sanctions and covert sabotage) is not good enough because... oh, I guess we haven't declared war on them yet. Surge in Afghanistan wasn't good enough even though there was no popular approval for one and there is even less now. Major overhaul of health insurance doesn't matter... because Congress didn't read it. Legislators almost never read the full text of the legislation. How about we judge the bill its contents? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act Tax cuts for middle class Americans don't matter because they need to be renewed.

                          I mean... come on. Your criticisms only make sense if you are completely ignorant of the American political system and the practical realities of operating within that system.

                          • reply
                            October 8, 2012 4:07 PM

                            Can Obama do anything right in my view? Yes he can. He was right to give the green light to the raid into Pakistan to kill OBL. Some of Obamacare is good in my opinion, such as not being able to hold preexisting conditions against people and also removing some caps however it doesn't even hope to fix the actual problem which is health care is far too expensive.

                            Billions in new technology? I wasn't aware that was the governments job to create new industry and how did that work out for many of those companies? Solyndra was certainly a bad investment.

                            Being in the military and being in prior to the removal of DADT and post removal of DADT I've seen zero difference. You can openly say you're gay but again you get no benefits at all. Meaningless. I personally have no problem with someone whom is gay or straight sexuality has zero place in the military period. I also don't think it's the governments job to determine if you can get married if you're gay or not... yet I don't see any push to open that door. So while DADT may seem oh so great all it does is allow you to be an openly gay second class citizen. You're better off not even coming out (which in my experience) is what most gays in the military are doing... not coming out.

                            Removing 1/3 of the weapons stockpiles is meaningless. We can destroy the world several times over still with 1/3 the weapons. So what's the difference besides a # on a piece of paper? If nuclear war were to erupt between the two it still has the same plausible outcome despite a reduction in nuclear weapons.

                            We are preventing Israel, whom would be most likely to suffer a nuclear strike, if Iran developed a nuclear weapon from striking Iran. Also it is odd that you state we aren't at war with Iran because #1 that hasn't stopped Obama from taking military action without Congress' approval and #2 according to the DOD we are at war with Iran per their rules, as they have recently declared cyber attacks constitute acts of war..Stuxnet was one of the attacks.

                            The surge in Afghan was not good enough, especially when the President announced when the surge would be over before they ever got there. Brilliant military strategy. We are fighting an enemy that knows they simply have to wait out the Americans because we have told everyone when we are going to leave.

                            Tax cuts for the middle class... Obama openly wanted to end Bush era tax cuts. Also Obamacare leads to more taxes on the middle class which I have already pointed out.

                            No the criticisms make perfect sense if one does actually understand what the Federal Government's job is supposed to be. Defending Obama as a champion of the middle class while he raises taxes on them and imposes new taxes? You have shown that you write off $25 million dollars as nothing... no wonder we are 16 trillion in debt with that sort of rationale. Obamacare is supposed to take on insurance companies and does make improvements in some areas however it doesn't do anything to fix the problem which is the cost of care which was the whole point of Obamacare. How ironic is it that the affordable health care act comes with a penalty if you don't have insurance. You're literally been fed to the insurance companies. Nancy Pelosi even said that they have to PASS the bill so we can find out what's in it. Yikes.

                            Read your own article it openly cites some of the taxes to come with Obamacare... openly cites taking funding from Medicare... taxing medical manufacturers and importers of name brand drugs... I bet that's going to make the cost of health care cheaper right? Most businesses pass the costs to the consumer.

                            So for the most part, no Obama can't do anything right. When he finally does he is too quick to spike the football to actually make something out of it. In my opinion he should stop skipping intel briefings and start acting like the POTUS. He has time for the view, hanging with Katy Perry, partying with Jay-Z yet he doesn't have time to prepare for a debate, meet with foreign leaders, etc? Give me a break.

                            • reply
                              October 8, 2012 5:18 PM

                              You're a piece of work, my friend.

                              1) The government's job is to fulfill it's constitutional duties and their electoral mandate. Obama was indeed elected in part to invest in new technology and spur future economic growth. The federal government has been intimately involved in research and development for almost a century now. See NASA, DARPA, etc. The stimulus included loans to all kinds of private businesses. One of those included Solyndra, a relatively small investment, which went bad because of faulty businesses practices and China's massive subsidies of solar panels. Let's try not to miss the forest for the trees. The vast majority of the loans were successful. The CBO estimates the stimulus saved or created 3 million jobs, which wasn't as much as was promised, but was enough to be an overall net positive for the country (at least according the majority of economists who studied the subject).

                              2) Again, it's not meaningless. You're being completely insensitive to men and women in the armed forces who were forced to keep their sexuality secret and no longer have to. Now I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying they shouldn't serve in the military? If that is the case, I wholeheartedly disagree.

                              3) Politics is a series of small steps. You're not going to get Russia and the U.S. to dismantle their entire nuclear stockpiles over night. START is just another step along the process to eventual disarmament. It's a pretty large reduction too. Twenty or thirty years from now, we may see a situation where there is no longer mutually assured destruction. Anyway, even a small reduction reduces the likelihood of a nuclear weapon getting into the hands of terrorists.

                              4) Iran isn't going to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon. The government of Iran, like all autocractic regimes, are motivated by self-preservation. An attack on Israel would result in Tehran getting leveled to dust. There's no way that scenario ends well for Iran. I agree that Obama could initiate military action on Iran and is choosing not to. Wisely so, I will add. An attack on Iran would be difficult and would not prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan tried to stop Pakistan from getting a nuke, just as Bill Clinton tried to stop North Korea. Both men failed, but the world did not end. India and Pakistan have not blown each other up. South Korea has not been attacked. Life goes on.

                              5) The Taliban knows they can wait us out anyway. The Mujahideen waited out the USSR and they can do it again. There was a time table for withdrawal set in Iraq too, if you recall. Yet the surge there was successful, largely because we were able to buy the loyalty of the Sunnis. The Taliban have not shown a willingness to negotiate, which is the only way the conflict will end.

                              6) The Affordable Care Act does /not raise taxes on the middle class. That's completely false. The plan's revenue mostly comes from high-income Americans, health insurance companies, and excise taxes on unnecessary procedures.

                              7) Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class. Quite the opposite - he's cut them. He extended the Bush tax cuts and included tax reductions in the stimulus. 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts.

                              8) The Affordable Care Act absolutely takes important steps to reduce the cost of health care. By adding 30 million Americans to the health insurance pool, overall costs will go down because there will be less emergency room visits. The plan also ends fee for service payments in Medicare, which are a huge part of the rising cost of care. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/moving-away-from-fee-for-service/256755/ Pelosi's comment was dumb. I won't defend her. But we know what's in the plan, so that's a non-issue.

                              9) You say the deficit is a problem and then get upset about cuts to Medicare. Guess what? Medicare is the largest culprit in our deficit. If you want to reduce the deficit, you need to tackle entitlements. The ACA makes cuts to Medicare that don't affect patient care and help preserve the overall fiscal health of the program.

                              10) Your assertion that Obama doesn't work hard is ridiculous, sorry. As much as I hated Bush, I never claimed that he didn't work hard.

                              • reply
                                October 8, 2012 7:30 PM

                                tag fail

                              • reply
                                October 8, 2012 9:23 PM

                                1) The Federal government's job by no stretch of the imagination is not to create industry. If you are really trying to compare defense research (DARPA) and NASA to Solyndra then it's this is beyond a lost cause. I am glad that over half a billion dollars is small beans. I guess we do just print money these days....
                                The CBO director said the stimulus will be a drag on the economy for the next 10 years. Nevermind giving money to companies that were failing for very good reasons in many cases. Also even at the guess of saving/creating 3 million jobs that comes out to the Federal Gov spending over $200,000 per job that was either saved or created. You want to put the blame on Solyndra not be able to compete because of unfair practices.. sounds reasonable... however why not either make the practices fair before propping a company like that up or don't give them the money to lose.
                                The Federal Gov trying to play with industries also helped lead us down this path.

                                2)I'm not being insensitive I'm stating the fact that if you're gay in the military you're now openly stating that you're a second class citizen... that completely based upon your sexual preference you do not qualify for entitlements married members of the military do. I'm not saying they shouldn't serve, I could care less if they are gay or not. I'm guessing you're not in the military and may be unaware that there is a big difference to being married in the military versus single. Being a Marine, I'll use this example. A Lcpl (E3 on the pay scale and the most common rank in the USMC) in the vast majority of cases will live in a barracks. If you are a married Lcpl (a straight one) you are given BAH (Basic Allowance Housing) that is money purely for rent. Also your wife/husband qualify for health insurance through the military and other perks (to include college tuition assistance to name another). If you are gay and married you do not get any of those entitlements. So now if you are gay in the military what do you have to gain from coming out and being openly gay? It's no secret many in the military are very anti-gay and you get none of the benefits of a straight couple.

                                3) Well realistically neither country will dismantle their entire nuclear arsenal. A small reduction also really has no effect on terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Those would come from Iran/N Korea and obviously they aren't part of the START program. This is one of those deals that sounds great on paper but in reality in pretty meaningless.
                                START wasn't merely reducing the number of nuclear weapons either, it was Russia getting the United States to back off the ballistic shield in Europe which of course made our allies angry and left them without it's protection. Also the reduction of nuclear weapons from Russia is taking them at their word something I personally am not quick to do.

                                • reply
                                  October 9, 2012 6:54 AM

                                  1) Solyndra was a loan. That's a really important distinction. The expectation is that the money comes back. It helps gets new companies on their feet and ultimately shouldn't cost the taxpayer. Solyndra just happened to be a bad apple. You hardly ever hear about the companies that are paying back the loans and are successful, like Tesla.

                                  The CBO director said no such thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html

                                  2) I appreciate your insight into the military (which I admittedly lack). But this isn't an issue unique to the military. LGBTs are second class citizens in the civilian world too. The repeal of DADT spares LGBTs from having to fear that their sexuality will be discovered and that they will be discharged. That's a big step in the right direction.

                                  3) They won't dismantle the entire arsenal, but they might reduce it to a level that we couldn't destroy the entire world - just most of it.

                                  • reply
                                    October 9, 2012 7:10 PM

                                    1) Yes I am aware that Solyndra was a loan. My point is it is not the job of the Federal Gov to loan money to start ups this way. Especially since the Fed Gov (which really means us) stands 16 Trillion in debt, we are taking loans to give... loans. Yes Telsa appears to be fiscally a success as far as the loan goes ( I believe it paid it off slightly early). That doesn't negate the fact that isn't the Federal Government's job.

                                    The CBO did "the level of GDP would be a little lower at the end. That is, a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.". Here is a video http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/17/cbo-on-the-stimulus

                                    2) No this issue of the legal rights of gays is not unique to the military however DADT is. I do agree that it makes it so if you are discovered to be gay you will no longer need to fear discharge on the basis. However the military can pretty much discharge for anything they want (There is an article in the UCMJ, Article 34, which is commonly referred to as the "catchall" as they can charge you with that to pin literally ANYTHING on you). I don't find it to be a big step because gays still have no reason to come out of the closet in the military. What do you have to gain by stating you're gay? At best nothing changes... at worst a lot of being treated badly.

                                    3) Most of it/all of it. Let's be realistic... these nukes aren't going away. Also China is building up their military arsenal and their nuclear capabilities continue to expand. START seems like a great thing on paper but in reality it makes no difference other than we pissed off some of our own allies and the Russians were able to dictate the deployment of our ballistic missile defense.

                                    • reply
                                      October 9, 2012 10:34 PM

                                      Why is not the job of the federal government to invest in new technology and help American business? Because you say so? I'd like to hear a good reason. Yes, I'm aware we have a large debt. We also had a housing buble burst that precipitated into a financial meltdown and a credit freeze that strangled the national economy. The stimulus was an effort to restart the economy, ignoring the debt in the short term in favor of economic growth.

                                      Watch the video. "Our estimate of the cumulative growth in GDP over the ten years was positive." He goes on to there is a small window at the end where the reduction of funds from the bill will hurt growth, but it's outweighed by the positive effects in the short term. Your article is taking the CBO director out of context.

                                      I'm a lot less cynical than you when it comes to the repeal of DADT and START. I don't think debating either topic further is worthwhile.

                              • reply
                                October 8, 2012 9:23 PM


                                4)Iran doesn't have to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, they can merely give one (or a dirty bomb) to their sponsored terrorist groups. Apparently you're worried about Russian/US nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists since you brought that up but not Iran? It's also very easy to say oh Iran isn't going to do it. It's far too late to act on anything if there is a mushroom cloud over Israel. Also let's not forget who is running Iran. While the President of Iran is obviously full of hate for Israel, the Ayatollah is no fan by any stretch and he's 73 years old, he's supposed to be a devoted Muslim. That could quite easily spell disaster if he thinks by creating WW3 it will push along what he thinks his religion teaches.

                                5) Iran/Iraq are two very different places is the first thing to address. The second part was, yes there as a timetable for Iraq established under Bush of which Obama allowed to lapse to leave the country. That was not the intention of the US military to leave Iraq completely like we did. What was left of the insurgency did not expect us to leave like we did either. Of course like I mentioned above the Taliban and the Sunnis are a completely different enemy. Versus the Russians we gave them weapons to knock down their helos and attack their convoys. However what is not common knowledge was that Russian was absolutely slaughtering them near the end of the war by switching to faster tactics and utilizing the Spetz Naz. We have complete supremacy when it comes to firepower over there but we have are Rules of Engagement (ROEs) that are in many cases so strict units are not able to properly decimate the enemy. The problem is we are playing politics in Afghanistan, not fighting a war. I'm not advocating killing civilians mindlessly and obviously we need to avoid that as much as possible, however a little known fact about Afghanistan is that we actually pay the people that attack us. They attack from a compound, we return fire and they flee. They come back to collect payment for the damage. You cannot negotiate with these people. To think otherwise is a complete lack of understanding of the enemy we fight. They slaughter fellow Afghanis for dancing, if they are seen talking to us they will literally cut off their heads. I recall seeing an old man crying coming out to our patrol because the Taliban had beat the hell out of him and his family the night before to make an example of them. He hadn't even spoken with us prior to their beating.

                                6) Then explain the estimated 6 million people paying what the supreme court called a tax, Obama calls a penalty, for not having health insurance or not having an insurance plans that qualifies per Obamacare? Again I don't think that will be 6 million rich people.
                                $60 billion annual fee on health insurance providers... Where are those insurance providers going to get $60 billion dollars? I'm going to guess you and me.

                                7) The CBO states Obamecare will result in 6 million people paying a minimum of $695.

                                8) Why would people stop using/abusing the ER just because they have insurance? I understand what you are saying but have a hard time believing that will be the actual case. I'm glad that they ended the fee for service with Medicare. Like I've said earlier in this thread Obamacare has some genuinely good parts. However even taking that out isn't the source of the problem. Even without that, even with people abusing the ER, health care is very costly. Also adding all of these people to the system, are they going to instantly add a bunch of doctors?


                                9) I didn't get "upset" about cuts to Medicare, I did point it out he's cutting it because he likes to claim Romney wants to cut more which certainly doesn't appear to be the case. However there will be a rationing of care under Obamacare.

                                10) How else can you explain him missing 62% of his Presidential Daily Briefs from 2011 to mid 2012? He has time for Jay-Z, the View, etc but not enough time for foreign leaders? I know he has to campaign and I know he has to get out there but his choice in where he spends his time appears very one sided... and not on the side of being the President.

                                • reply
                                  October 9, 2012 7:03 AM

                                  4) Everyone speaks fearfully of Iran because they are a theocracy and their leaders say some legitimately crazy shit. But if you look at the regime's organization and actions over the past thirty years, there is nothing in their character that would provoke them to engage in a hot war with the United States. We have happily had a cold war for the past thirty years, but an escalation would only go badly for Iran and they know it. Giving a dirty bomb to terrorists is a very risky endeavor. 1) It can be traced back to Iran. 2) If Israel is attacked by a dirty bomb, everyone will immediately assume it was Iran.

                                  5) I actually agree with you that we need a sustained military effort to defeat the Taliban. I supported both surges. But I'm also cognizant of the political realities at home. Obama got a pretty substantial surge that lasted two years. It didn't work. The Karzai regime is corrupt and there isn't much we can do to fix it. The Taliban won't negotiate. It's a bad situation and Obama's hands are tied politically. He can fulfill his mandate from the voters and withdrawa or he can continue a war that serves no strategic interest and has no popular support at home. I think we have a moral obligation to help the Afghanis, but most Americans don't see it that way. What is the president supposed to do? He inherited this mess.

                                  • reply
                                    October 9, 2012 7:26 PM

                                    4) Looking at Iran for the past 30 years shows one that is they are capable of quite a bit of fighting. They fought Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war for nearly a decade. They no longer have to worry about Iraq.
                                    If they use their well known state sponsored terrorist groups to use a dirty bomb then it's already too late. The point is preventing something like that. So basically your strategy is gamble and if Iran does set off a dirty bomb in Israel well that's the green light? That seems like a horrible deal for the Israelis to me.

                                    5) Karzai is extremely corrupt but I believe we can do more to make him play ball with us. We are his money flow. Money certainly talks. I'm personally not interested in the supposed "mandate of the people" when it comes to these wars because it's like a bunch of sports fan bandwagon jumpers. People that have zero idea what actually goes on over there wish to armchair quarterback (this isn't a shot at you but the American public as a whole). There was support for the war when Obama became President. He supported the war, he said it was the right war of the two. I would also wager that two years isn't much time to "surge" as your additional forces don't all appear at the start of the 2 years and disappear at the end. In reality it was more of a true 1 year surge.

                                    As far as the Taliban won't negotiate. We have negotiated with them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8583730/US-is-negotiating-with-the-Taliban-Afghan-president-Hamid-Karzai-confirms.html
                                    The problem is it's not worth our time or effort to do so because they aren't even close true to their word. What do I think the President should do? I believe he should commit one way or the other.. playing halfway in a weak attempt and taking control of the situation was a waste of lives, money and time.

                                • reply
                                  October 9, 2012 7:21 AM

                                  6) How would you fix the health care system? The ACA is based off a Republican idea - expand the private insurance system with an individual mandate. The mandate allows previously uninsurable people to get insurance, without crippling the insurance companies. The unfortunate side effect is that some people get hit with a fee.

                                  My preferred choice is a single payer system, but that doesn't seem palatable to the American public.

                                  7) A lot of costly ER visits could have been prevented if preventative care was sought out earlier. The uninsured can't go to a doctor, so they end up in the ER. This is a big part of the high cost of care. Moving towards a preventative care system will save everyone money. Adding people to the insurance system will not add doctors, but the demand for care isn't changing. Everyone needs care. This plan will simply shift resources away from the emergency room to preventative care.

                                  8) Romney wants to cap Medicare growth at inflation, turning the system into a defined contribution program. That would dramatically cut Medicare, as the cost of care is still projected to rise at a rate above inflation.

                                  9) Do you have a source for that figure?






















                                  • reply
                                    October 9, 2012 7:45 PM

                                    6) First I would allow insurance companies to compete across state lines (which I believe is banned under Obamacare still). I'd take some of Obamacare, the parts about they can't decline coverage due to a prior existing condition, can't have bs caps on your medical care.

                                    Like I said there are some good parts to Obamacare but the Federal Government forcing people to buy something isn't a good thing in my opinion.

                                    Whenever people bring up the Government actually running health care I always bring up the VA. That's healthcare they do run and look how well they handle that. Do you think that the Government could actually run health care for 300 + million people when they can't do it smoothly for a fraction of that.

                                    7) Sure ER visits could be prevented from preventative care but that's assuming people will take personal responsibility to do it. The last time I was personally in the ER I recall seeing people there for the common cold, the FLU and other issues that certainly didn't warrant being there (of course some people certainly were there for legit reasons).

                                    I agree that preventative care would be the best way to handle things but you can't force people to help themselves. Look how many obese people are in the US, which leads to diabetes, joint problems, yada yada yada. We can't get these people to put down the coke, put down the Big Mac, drink some water and eat some chicken instead and merely do a little bit of exercise.

                                    My view is have people take a little bit of personal responsibility. If you are obese and develop diabetes due to that and don't have a real reason that prevented you from addressing the problem I don't have much sympathy.

                                    8) How do you want to reform Medicare?

                                    9) http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Rural-Hospitals-Medicare/2012/10/08/id/459063
                                    Apparently they are saying $716 billion in cuts which of course vary from article to article.

                                    10) So you don't have a problem with him skipping 60%+ of his intel briefings? Or apparently deciding to take hanging out with Jay-Z at parties and going to be eye candy on the View? Again I know he has to campaign and raise money (which is a whole other issue about his campaign... CVV number is needed to buy an Obama shirt but apparently not give money to the campaign and avoids FEC tracking) however I would expect if he was trying to get re-elected he would attempt to appear Presidential instead of just being popular by meeting with world leaders and taking on real interviews.

                                    • reply
                                      October 9, 2012 10:43 PM

                                      That part you like - the part where insurance companies have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. That part is really expensive for the insurance companies because people with pre-existing conditions get sick. So as you have pointed out, when you burden corporations, they often pass the cost off onto the consumer. Thus, the individual mandate. The mandate gives the insurance companies thirty million new healthy customers who offset the cost of the sick people. Basically, how insurance works. Universal coverage in a country ultimately ends up costing everyone less and no one goes bankrupt because they get sick (health related costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.).

                                      I don't know much about the VA, so I shouldn't comment on it. But I can speak with knowledge about how the rest of the world handles health care. Look at Canada or France for instance. They have a single payer system with limited private insurance. They both spend less of their GDP on health care and achieve better results. Again, less money and more healthy people. There is a wealth of data out there on how to structure and implement a single payer system in the United States. It doesn't have to be like France or Canada, either. It could be more like Britain's National Health Service, although I don't think that system works quite as well. Either way, everyone gets covered and everyone pays less ultimately. Your taxes will go up, but they won't be as high as your premiums today.

                                      I don't have sympathy for people who don't take personal responsibility either, but I don't like them costing me money either. Sick people, overweight people, people who end up in the E.R., they all cost you and I money. It's in our best interests to see them covered and receiving preventative care.

                                      My "reform" for Medicare would be to create Medicare For All... and recreate the program from scratch to model Canada's system.

                                      Once again, I'd like to see a link where it says that Obama is skipping 60% of intel briefings.

                                      • reply
                                        October 10, 2012 5:53 PM

                                        Yes those portions that I like are expensive. They will be just as expensive adding them to Obamacare. I understand what you are saying about adding a massive amount of people to attempt to offset the cost of healthcare however I disagree. That is why health insurance companies don't allow people with pre-existing conditions because of the massive cost. Their costs are going to go through the roof and while they may be bringing in more revenue they will also be blowing through money at the cyclic rate. I do also realize that it is the #1 cost of bankruptcy (and know several people whom have gone through that).

                                        Obamacare does not address the problem. Healthcare costs way too much and these 30 million people you cite being added, it's going to cost them money as you pointed out it's an individual mandate... or a tax if you will. Do you think these 30 million people are considered rich? Probably not. They need to look at what we can do to make drugs cheaper, what we can do to make college more affordable so more people are actually able to become doctors. Obamacare does not address any of this, it simply is a band aid over a gaping wound that doesn't bring the actual cost of health care down.

                                        Well I'm not sure how much of the news you monitor but the VA has been in the news for years now and it's 9 out of 10 times not for a good reason. Canada/France, they ration care. They also don't have the rates of grossly overweight people we have. One of the big problems I see with these single payer systems is that you will be paying in and if you're outside the group they believe is worth the treatment then you are SOL.

                                        I understand you don't like them costing you money by abusing the ER but do you think for a second ER abuse would change? That now you're forced to pay a higher premium because they have to insure someone 200lbs overweight, requiring special medical care because they never made an attempt to lose the weight.

                                        "Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.”"
                                        http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/09/president-obama-community-organizer-doesnt-bother-with-intel-briefings/

                                        "During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent."

                                        Of course we are now seeing them paint an entirely different story about the killing of our ambassador. So do you think the President is being an effective President by going to all these glamorous parties, doing weak interviews and skipping intel briefings? I'm not sure if he wants to be President or wants to just be popular.

                                        • reply
                                          October 10, 2012 9:26 PM

                                          Please don't call it Obamacare. I don't care what the president says, it's a derisive term and inaccurate. It's called the Affordable Care Act.

                                          Right now, you have three groups of Americans. The first are people with some form of health insurance. They help keep costs down and they are responsible. The second are people who have pre-existing conditions and can't get insurance. They cost the system a lot regardless of whether they have insurance. Currently, they end up in the E.R. and cost everyone money. Under the ACA, they will have insurance and will cost insurance companies a lot of money, which would pass the cost onto the consumer if it weren't for the third group of people. Those are people who aren't sick and don't have insurance. Now that they are mandated to buy insurance, they will give the insurance companies a lot of money to offset the new sick people. Insurance companies aren't hurt. But won't these people have to either pay for insurance or pay a fee and thus be punished? No, because if you can't pay, the government with subsidize the insurance. If you can pay and refuse to, you the fee won't be that large. The fee is far less than the cost of insurance.

                                          Ultimately, the bill will save the taxpayer money and reduce the cost of care. It's a win-win for the public as a whole.

                                          Everyone talks about "rationing care." It sounds bad. It is. But the truth is we ration care in America. The care goes to the wealthy, primarily. America has high "quality" care, but it's distributed very inefficiently. The rich get really top quality care and can get all kinds of unnecessary procedures that cost the system a lot of money. The poor get no care and end up in the E.R., costing the system a lot of money. The single payer systems are more utilitarian and more efficient. There are horror stories about people not getting care, but if you ask the average Canadian, Briton, or Frenchmen, they will all tell you how great their system is. Not so with most Americans. Insurance companies fucking suck. Their whole goal is to deny people coverage, because it saves them money. That's a very perverted way to handle the health of your citizens. It's also... *gasp* inefficient. Insurance companies often have 30% of their costs in administrative services trying to deny people coverage. Medicare's administrative fees are more like 5-10%. It's actually a more efficient system.

                                          The obesity problem is sort of a chicken & egg thing. Are we obese because we have bad health care? Or do we have bad health care because we are obese? Tough one to answer.

                                          • reply
                                            October 11, 2012 2:14 PM

                                            Now you're third group of people, whom you say are not sick and are not insured. You believe they will even out the cost of the very sick. First that is making a wild assumption, do you have anything to support that this will actually occur? Secondly it still doesn't address the fact that if these people are healthy, do not need health insurance, do not want health insurance, that they are FORCED to pay for insurance which in reality isn't for them but is for someone else. So now you're taking money from what will be a majority of middle class people and taking it away from them. That is taxing the middle class.

                                            That is also ignoring the implications of the Federal Government stepping in and making you buy something. You don't have a choice.

                                            "Ultimately, the bill will save the taxpayer money and reduce the cost of care. It's a win-win for the public as a whole." How does it "save' you money when you're paying for something you weren't before? If I don't have health insurance and now I'm spending we'll say $5,000 how am I saving money? I'm not.

                                            So the rich are getting unnecessary procedures? When I checked insurance doesn't cover what they deem unnecessary. Do you have an example of this? I do know a place where you can get cosmetic surgery for free, through the Federal Gov. http://www.breastimplantinfo.org/news/be-all-you-can-be.html Free breast implants for the military. Who's paying for this? Tax payers.

                                            As for the Canadians having some utopia of health insurance, there are many cases, a lot of rationing and they even are forced to allow private care now.

                                            As for people who will pay the fine/tax instead of getting health insurance "They also estimate that most of the 6 million who pay the penalty tax will be low- or middle-income earners. About 600,000 individuals and families in poverty will pay the tax, meaning individuals who earn less than $12,000 per year and families who earn less than $24,600 (see the table below). About half, or 3 million, will earn less than 300 percent of the poverty level, which is roughly the median income. " Who made these estimates? Why the CBO and JCT did. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obamacare-penalty-tax-now-estimated-hit-6-million

                                            As for the Medicare being so efficient... they are spending roughly $50 billion a year in improper payments, which of course doesn't include their drug benefit.

                                            Are we obese because we have bad health care? This can't be serious. Until bad health care makes you eat a terrible diet, be lazy and no doing any sort of minimal working out then obviously the answer is no. This is a prime example however of a lack of responsibility for one's self. The last number I recall about overweight/obese people in America put it at 60%+ of adults. There is a wealth of information out there about how being overweight is terrible for your health, there is a wide variety of places to workout for free. Unless you have some sort of medical condition that causes it, there is zero excuse. My friend whom is a double above the knee amputee... is in shape. My friend whom had limb salvage performed on him... is in shape... my friend who can't lift his ankle.. in shape. This is exactly the problem with the United States today, zero responsibility to the individual.

                                      • reply
                                        October 10, 2012 5:58 PM

                                        Also this is some news regarding Russia's nuclear arsenal "Russia said Wednesday it had no intention to automatically extend a 20-year old deal with the United States helping secure the nation's nuclear stockpiles, a move that comes amid a growing isolationist streak in Kremlin policy."

                                        http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/ap-russia-no-nuclear-disarmament-extension-101012/

                                        So even if Russia were to comply with reducing their arsenal if they aren't going to properly protect these weapons from being stolen who cares? A person who wants to start something on needs 1.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 12:40 PM

        Anyone whose vote is decided by the debates is a fucking moron.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 3:36 PM

        Politics these days is just reality TV for people who otherwise think they're above it, and the news channels are just entertainment products.

        Somebody who wants to find out what a candidate thinks and decide who to vote for doesn't need to compare which side had more "gaffes" or watch 2 years of Fox News commentary.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 11:49 AM

      Does Romney get an achievement for this?

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 11:57 AM

      Wonder if they did a poll on how many people watched a Movie during the Debates, because all they really wanted was the Avatar.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 1:11 PM

      All my friends who watched it said Obama won it, but then the next day every single news outlet was saying that Romney won.

      I guess what you say doesn't matter, it's all how it's said.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 1:30 PM

        Romney clearly won on passion, aggression, and presentation. If you look beyond that, everything he said was either a contradiction to his previous positions, an obfuscation, or an outright lie. But if you judge debates on presentation only (as most people and media types do), then Romney clearly won.

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 3:42 PM

          Lol aggression. He won because when he said all the green energy loans went to Obama backers, Obama had no comeback. Same with the # of teachers you could hire with the money. Same with how many people are employed by small businesses. And MA schools being number 1. Also the fact that the tax break for oil and gas was only $2.8b per year.

          Obama lost because he had no comeback for any of the data points Romney had. All he had were "corporate jets" and wealthy people.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 3:48 PM

            it's weird to see that when other data points are out, the other side freaks out.

            http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 9:57 PM

            I think a lot of people here are forgetting one important thing... If you were an Obama/Romney supporter going into this... then you probably felt they won because you're going to agree with their points.
            Now with that said watching people claiming that Romney is going to kill off PBS.. seem to not realize they get other funding outside the Gov. Also if you ever change your viewpoint on anything you're a flip-flopper.
            People want to hit up one canidate for being rich... when ignoring the other is rich as well.
            Also stating that Romney "won" because he had more practice is silly. The President has had ample time to practice if he wanted to prepare for this. He simply can skip golfing if it is important to him.

            • reply
              October 6, 2012 2:54 AM

              Where are people hitting up Romney for being rich while ignoring that Obama is (less-so but still) rich as well? Other than left-wing blogs, I don't see anyone out there claiming Obama is a pauper.

              The complaints I see against Romney from a lot of the political left have very little to do with his own personal wealth and have much more to do with his business practices, ideas on corporate and individual taxation, and his seeming inability or refusal to understand that a huge portion of the American populace can't rely on their father to pay their way through school and help them start a business.

              Disliking the policies and views of a rich person doesn't mean you dislike the rich in general, it just means you dislike that person's policies and views.

              • reply
                October 6, 2012 6:48 AM

                Where are people ignoring that Obama is rich? It's not uncommon for people to list Romney's wealth as a reason to not vote for him because he's rich = he's out of touch... which applies for Obama.

                I guess you don't use Imgur? Constant complaining how how rich he is. The left even attempted to claim he paid 0% in taxes.

                I assume you forget the 47% video? I'd say yes he understands a large portion of the US population can't rely on their father to pay their way through school.

                Yes disliking policies and views of a rich person doesn't mean you just dislike the rich... just as disliking the views/policies of a black man doesn't make you a racist or any other absurd ideas thrown out by the left. What it does make someone is a hypocrite, at best, if they claim they can't support Romney based on him being out of touch with the middle class when you then support Obama. If you don't agree with his policies, etc okay that's perfectly fine. However many (which includes all political parties, not just the left) will ignore anything wrong by their candidate because they have the "correct" party affiliation next to their name.

          • reply
            October 5, 2012 9:58 PM

            haha, "data points", here's a data point: my plan includes pre-existing conditions (for those who already have insurance)

            lies! romney had no data. all lies.

          • reply
            October 6, 2012 2:49 AM

            How many teachers could you hire for $2.8b per year? If you add in the farm subsidies going to huge agribusiness interests, how many more would that be?

            • reply
              October 6, 2012 7:39 AM

              Well it's impossible to tell for a few reasons.
              #1 Teachers are paid differently based upon where they work.
              #2 States their schools not the Federal Gov. Yes the Federal Gov gives money to States in support of education however it's up to those States, counties, etc to determine the # of teachers they employ.

              In addition to this, it sounds great to simply hire more teachers however that doesn't really solve anything other than class size. Some kids don't want to learn and there is nothing a teacher can do about that.. and on the flip side there are bad teachers whom cannot be fired thanks to Unions.

              So simply shifting money from one group to another also does absolutely nothing to help our debt problem. Also why don't we use Chicago schools as a case study of how well throwing money at schools work. Teachers making $76,000 a year will get a 17.6% raise over 4 years... which adding 74 million dollars more per year for that district's budget ( a city whom has increased their debt 121.9% to nearly 6.9 billion dollars over just the last 10 years).

              The point over going this far off on the subject is that if you throw tons of money at these schools how much of it is going to go to the students and how much of it is going to be sucked up by Unions? I'd personally feel a lot better about tossing billions at schools if not for situations like this. If these Chicago teachers wanted more resources for their students well apparently the district was willing to give up $74 million additionally a year... but none went to the students. How many teachers could you hire with $74 million? Apparently none.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 2:55 PM

      Is there some way we can get this marked political?

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 2:58 PM

      Romney 'won' because he was more aggressive and rehearsed, not because of anything intelligent that he said. I wouldn't call that a victory at all.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 3:38 PM

        Then you don't understand what winning a debate means

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 3:46 PM

        Did you watch the debate?

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 3:48 PM

        Ha...he won as soon as Obama said "we're not here to talk about the past 4 years"

        • reply
          October 5, 2012 3:57 PM

          fareed nailed it. the new sculpted romney showed up.

          http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/05/a-greater-challenge-to-obama-than-a-strong-debater/?hpt=hp_t2

          If so, Obama faces something far more challenging than a good debater in the last weeks of the campaign. He faces a moderate Republican.

          that's the crux of the matter. it's not what obama said or didn't say. it's who showed up representing the GOP. their mission is to say or do anything to win the presidency. and that's what romney is being honed to do. no one knows anything about the real romney, it doesn't really exist. he is an embodiment of many people, a goal, an ideology. he cannot stand alone. he has the strength of an army preparing him for this, he's a living tank. run over the competition and say and do anything it takes.

          including saying the 47% line, then completely retracting it.

          that's romney.

          say and do ANYTHING to win, even if it's completely flip flopping.

    • reply
      October 5, 2012 4:02 PM

      It surprises me how many people in this thread think Romney was the only one spewing shit. Both those assholes are full of shit.

      • reply
        October 5, 2012 10:05 PM

        Please... let's hear your reasoned argument as to how Obama was spewing shit.

      • reply
        October 6, 2012 1:41 AM

        Except Obama is not.

    • reply
      October 7, 2012 10:59 AM

      The odd thing about these results because at the end of live showing of the debate there was a poll on the Xbox it showed Obama winning. I wonder if this was taken the next day and not during the actual live event.