I thought it was an interesting debate. The two definitiely have different philosophies and plans for America.
I think Biden may have excited the DFL base and alienated some moderates with his cynical scoffing expressions and continual interuptions. Whereas Ryan seemed to stay calm, polite, collected, candid, etc, which I think many moderates will respect. Though his strong pro-life message will scare some of the moderates off.
It will be interesting to see what the polls say in the coming week, and if this makes any change at all. Personally I think it was a draw, to maybe a slight win for Ryan.
Thoughts?
Youtube Debate Biden Ryan Video
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Paul literally thinks that rich people shouldn't be taxed, that their way in the world should be paid for by the rest of us. That's easily scoffed at, and the fact that such views are simply not dismissed out of hand, the cause of much cynicism.
--Hiram
Did you forget this chart already?
Atlantic Taxes vs Income The "rich" currently do pay more... I thought Obama wanted everyone to play by the same rules...
Also, I kept hearing Ryan saying that deductions and benefits would vary by income. (ie rich wouldn't get as many) Seems like enough "different rules" to even satisfy the Democrats.
I think a key big difference between the Obama and Romney camps is that a vote for Obama is a vote for a strong and large federal gov't. A vote for Romney is a vote for stronger States and Citizens.
Personally I think the Feds should stick to defense and interstate issues and leave more responsibility and authority to the states and their citizens. I like local control better than Obama's one size fits all approach.
Though his may offer some benefits of scale, it definitely will mean less buy in and more angst at the local level. Or maybe we can disband much of the local gov'ts and save some big money ??? Just have them run by people who are appointed by the President and Congress.
John, you are right on except for the concern for pro-life. The last survey I saw said that the position Ryan took was actually the majority of Americans. The notion that you can have an abortion any time, for any reason, at taxpayer expense, is a loser.
J. Ewing
When we lose the election because of that hard "government should legislate morality per Catholic beliefs and invade the Doctor/Patient relations" stance, taxes go up and government grows, don't be crying to me.
And I am sure you are as tired of hearing it as I am of saying it... What is your source for this survey and it's clear results? The one conducted by the Cathoilc church of its Bishops...
Here is an interesting survey that seems to show folks are split pretty even as I suspected. Gallup Prolife Prochoice The interesting thing is that it is not as strong as a factor as I would have thought.
Maybe that is why we don't hear much about it.
I think both sides came away moderately happy. Biden didn't do as badly and Ryan did better than CW expected. But that Biden seems to find terrorism and unemployment amusing may have consequences with independents. And there's no denying Biden was flat out lying on religious freedom for Catholics and these continuing fables about what happened in Libya. Oh, and he voted FOR Iraq and Afghanistan, not against as he claimed. Still, I think it was more or less a draw that changes nothing.
I score the debate a slight win for Biden. I tried to read a couple fact checkers to see if Bidens smirks and grins were warrented by Ryans lies or inaccuracies, but as usual both candidates were found to have made many misleading statements.
I did come across an amusing column from the Onion, however, which shows the Romney is a liar meme is starting to stick.
Romney Proudly Explains How He's Turned Campaign Around
Apparently this Onion article indicates that the Obama anti-Christ meme is starting to stick. Obama Help Us Destroy Jesus
I knew it was only a matter of time... hahahaha
What Romney and Ryan are trying to say now, which is what they weren't saying recently, is that their tax rates will be lower but because of on specified changes in deductions and so forth, your taxes will stay the same. No wonder Biden got the giggles. What's the point of fiddling with the tax code to the extent Romney Ryan when really pressed now suggest that they want to do, to avoid the implications of what they said they would do for months and even years, when you end up paying the same tax? And by the way, how does adding a news, and seemingly pointless, array of tax loopholes, because that's what they are, simplify the tax code, another important goal of tax reformers?
==Hiram
"Here is an interesting survey ..."
It certainly is. Putting aside my suspicion of all things Gallup, I learn two things. First of all, that only 2% of the public is honest on the issue, saying they "don't know what the terms mean." The study I referenced pinned people down on a scale from "no abortion, no time, for nobody" to "every abortion, every time, for everybody," and the majority position, the one that included over 50% of those surveyed, was the view that Paul Ryan expressed-- pro-life with exceptions. That is why the two terms lack meaning, and why most folks are really both prochoice-- who can be against that-- AND prolife-- you have to favor that!
The second thing that is obvious is that the small majority of those who are single-issue prolife in every election are easily enough to tilt a close election. I see no reason why a candidate on that side of the debate would want to push those folks away, any more than a nominally prochoice candidate would want to alienate both sides by appearing to side with the prolife people, saying something like "personally prolife but politically prochoice."
J. Ewing
I think the R-R ticket has been consistently honest, though perhaps misleading to the casual listener, by saying they wanted to lower tax RATES, while remaining silent until now about total taxes. It's a lot better than the Obama claim about Republican "tax cuts for the rich" when the Bush tax cuts, supposedly for the rich, have been the law for ten years now. Extending them or making them permanent does not give a "cut" to the rich but simply continues the status quo. Eliminating the Bush rates on upper incomes which Obama (and Dayton, BTW) obsesses over, would be a tax increase. And it wouldn't do diddly for the deficit.
The other thing the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" did was to cause "the rich" to pay a HIGHER percentage of the total taxes than before. Lower rates gets more revenue, Laffer curve, and all that. That's why Romney and Ryan keep saying that they will keep taxes the same (on the rich) by curtailing deductions after the rate cuts. Or you could let the Bush cuts expire and let the rich pay less.
J. Ewing
Still looking for that surveys web address...
Personally I think most of pro-choice folks are like me. As you say most of us are not pro-abortion... We are pro-choice... As any small government, low regulation person should be...
We hope that the Mothers choose life for their non-viable fetus. And we are happy to spend tax dollars to support those babies if they are born.
Where as the pro-life folks want to institute government control to ensure the baby is delivered, and
withold funding to help the child develop into a healthy balanced educated adult once it is born. (ie early ed, parent ed, etc)
Gotta love those inconsistent Religious right folks...
John,
To me it seems the target of your Onion link is the religious right and and their claim that liberals are anti Christian. I know Obama has even been referred to as the anti Christ.
On the whole abortion debate I think Romney and the GOP are losing votes from women from their new extreme positions such as the personhood amendment and requiring early and invasive ultrasounds to get an abortion. The meme that the GOP is anti women is sticking enough to make a difference in the election.
I see it as people accepting that Obama's policies and plans often go after Christian freedoms...
Or maybe it is better to just take "The Onion" for what it is. A bunch of folks who are out to dupe as many people as often as possible, and make us laugh at our selves while doing it.
Based on the gallup poll I posted, it seems prolife/prochoice is important to many voters. Though not as important as I thought. I guess I support that finding personally since I am strong Prochoice and still vote Republican. Go figure...
My rationale is pretty simple. It is highly unlikely abortion will be an issue for me and mine, whereas taxes and the economy certainly will be...
So which Christian freedoms are often under attack by Obama administration?
This campaign is no where near viral, but I think it shows reproductive rights are getting more attention than usual.
"We hope that the Mothers choose life for their non-viable fetus. And we are happy to spend tax dollars to support those babies if they are born."
That's where YOU are inconsistent. If you are truly a small-government type as you say, then you have a legitimate claim to allowing individual women (hopefully with the advice of the father, family and clergy) to make that choice. So how, then, do you justify making the taxpayer responsible for this choice? If I as an individual taxpayer am responsible for the kid, then I want a say in the choice of an abortion. Come to think of it, I want a say in the conception process. :-) It's trite, but I still think "prochoice before conception, prolife after" makes a lot of sense.
J. Ewing
Laurie,
Primarily the topics I have heard are forcing certain groups to provide birth control via benefits. And of course the support for weakening the term "marriage" by supporting gays & lesbians to do it. And the temporary removal of God from the DFL platform. Seems they may have a case.
J,
I am ok with freedom of choice and little govt support.
Are you ok with gov't choice and helping to pay for the kid?
I thought our country was founded with a separation between church and state. A catholic affiliated church or university is very different form a catholic church. Many/most employees of these institutions are noncatholic and deserve access to contraceptive coverage same as people working for other employers. Also, no church is required to perform or recognize gay marriage in states where this is legal. Lastly, Obama didn't leave out the word God from the DFL platform, it was put in under his direction. Your case about Obama being anti religion is extremely weak, though you might say he is anti imposing extreme religion on people. I don't know why you sometimes make such dumb arguements that you seem to intelligent to support. The Onion piece was a parody of the extremeness of the religious right.
Your perception of reality as a non-Christian...
Dumb? Good thing I am insensitive...
Silly question. What is your rationale that birth control needs to part of the company's benefit plan?
Why would it be bad for the employee to just pay cash out of their financial compensation?
I must be missing something here... Condoms and pills aren't that expensive. Definitely not worth picking a fight with the churches.
Laurie, just one correction. "The separation of church and state" had no place in our founding, certainly not the way it is used by Democrats. The correct phraseology is from the First amendment, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
That means Congress may not establish a state religion (like the Church of England was). That has since been interpreted to mean government must not favor one religion over the other. The free exercise clause, though, means that religious people can do politics, and IMHO we are better when they do.
J. Ewing
Laurie, just one correction. "The separation of church and state" had no place in our founding, certainly not the way it is used by Democrats. The correct phraseology is from the First amendment, saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
That means Congress may not establish a state religion (like the Church of England was). That has since been interpreted to mean government must not favor one religion over the other. The free exercise clause, though, means that religious people can do politics, and IMHO we are better when they do.
J. Ewing
John,
I would NOT be happy with government "making the choice" on abortion and "paying for the kid." That's a false choice anyway. Would you want China's government-mandated abortion policy, with the one child a ward of the state a' la Brave New World? Who is responsible for sexual activity and its consequences? If it isn't the participants, haven't you invited government into the bedroom?
The other thing I dislike about that formulation is the notion that there is only one person involved in this decision, the woman, and only one morality, the right of this woman to "control her own body." (That is the justification for Ryan/Romney's rape and incest exceptions, BTW). But if the fetus is actually a viable human being, as defined by Roe v. Wade at 20 weeks, then there are TWO people involved here and laws might reasonably prohibit one from murdering the other though with some exceptions, perhaps. And if we accept that (as we should, it's the law of the land), then how far is it to the point where we recognize that a younger fetus is also a "potential citizen" and human baby. It certainly is not a giraffe nor dolphin. So while we might accept more exceptions for the murder of this pre-born human, it isn't unreasonable that there be some restraint. Do we really want abortion for sex selection? How about gross fetal deformity? How about for commercial harvesting of stem cells, or for returning a sex worker more quickly to her work? Seems to me there is some moral component to each of these questions, all of which would balance a woman's "right" to an abortion.
J. Ewing
Good then let's keep government smaller and out of the Doctors office.
Up through current viability date should be the woman's choice.
By the way, any other reasons Conservatives see Obama as anti-Christian.
Oh I forgot...
Didn't the man kind of lose his right in the choice when he irresponsibly had sex and got the woman pregnant? Seems close to your normal argument.
You are assuming that the man was irresponsible. It isn't always so, though sometimes both are irresponsible. If women want the right to "control their own bodies," though, then they ought to do so and not expect the taxpayers to bail them out if they don't. There is one sure-fire method of contraception, you know. It also prevents most venereal diseases.
J. Ewing
this recent pew forum on religion is full of info on trends which I found quite interesting. One thing that struck me is current trends favor the dems going forward- growth of unaffiliated/lean dem and decline of protestants.
I also noticed a majority favors same sex marriage and keeping abortion legal. They also showed more voters that are dem/lean dem than rep/lean rep, while a majority favor a smaller govt. So some respondents are inconsistent in their views.
another interesting pew survey: A Closer Look at the Parties in 2012. That is all from me tonight as I am going out to try to spot some zombies.
You mean when the man keeps it in his pants... Of course the man was irresponsible... It takes a woman and a man to make a baby. Or so the tv ads keep reminding us.
As I said, I am ok with not bailing them out. If we stop trying to limit abortions, morning after pills and other low cost options.
If you want mandate delivery, then get out you checkbook.
I'll check out the survey when I get to a computer.
By the way, J where is that survey address?
For that address, you need remember that I remember WHAT not where. You can do the googling as well or better than I if you want to prove my memory faulty.
Your position sounds reasonable about government not limiting freedom, except that government still has duty to protect us from one another. If a morning-after pill causes harm, the FDA should limit it. If you have a viable child you should not murder it. You have a right to "informed consent" before a medical procedure. You know, that sort of thing.
J. Ewing
If you value the fetus and child so highly, then to be consistent you should be help them once they are born to those irresponsible parents. Maybe then there would be fewer abortions, since the burden of being a parent wouldn't be perceived as so high.
As for links or no links, your choice. Without a source it is just another opinion.
The Laffer curve doesn't stand for the proposition that the lower the rates, the higher revenue. It's a curve after all. When going up the curve, higher rates mean higher revenues until you reach the peak. Only after you pass the peak of the curve, to revenues go do down when tax rates go up. In practice, this is a very complicated idea to apply in the real world. For one thing, keep in mind that it's effective rates that matter, not tax rates as provided by statutes. Mitt Romney is in the highest tax bracket at 35 percent. Yet his effective tax rate is about 14 percent, and would be significantly less if he took all the deductions he would be entitled to. The Laffer curve assumes that there is an optimal rate at which revenue is maximized, but the fact is there isn't even a common rate at which people are taxed, and without such a common rate, how could we begin to assess what an optimal rate might be?
--Hiram
John, I don't "value the fetus so highly." I value human life, including the mother. If you claim the right to unprotected or unwise sex, then you have the concomitant responsibility to look after the result. I'll make an exception for the life of the mother, because again, it's a human life.
J.
So let me understand, you have a great concern regarding the lives of both the mother and unborn child. Such that you would have the state mandate the "best" decision for them.
Yet you have no interest in the quality of their lives after the birth. From then on they should live with the consequences and beg from the non-profits.
Now I can almost support that punishment for the irresponsible adults. Though of course usually only the woman will bear it.
However to turn your back on the children of these forced births to irresponsible adults seems oh so wrong. And then when I recommend that the State/Schools grade parents and take action when necessary, you seem outraged that the State could be given such authority over parents.
So to summarize, you want to force the birth of unwanted children into homes of irresponsible adults who are often children themselves in many ways. As you said they proved themselves irresponsible by getting her knocked up unintentionally. Then you want the state to not ensure that the child is raised correctly because that is the right of the adult, even if they have been proven irresponsible by their own actions.
I am sure this makes perfect sense in some alternate universe... In this universe, this seems more likely:
Freakonomics Roe V Wade
"...that is the right of the adult, even if they have been proven irresponsible by their own actions."
You're not a lawyer, or you would know this is not possible. Parents who are seriously irresponsible have their kids removed by the government. Until that point, the law DOES give the parents both the right, and in my opinion the full responsibility, for the kid.
J.
"Seriously irresponsible..."
You have got to be kidding. To get a kid removed from the parents, those parents have to be incredibly abusive or neglectful. And due to the low social services spending, that is even rare.
And from what I understand, you would reduce the funding of these departments even further. Correct?
Not sure I would reduce "those" departments as much as rechannel their efforts and end duplication and ineffectiveness. If we started insisting on personal responsibility before these kids were born or even conceived, stopped subsidizing unwed motherhood (you get more of what you pay for) by limiting welfare to workfare, and assigning caseworkers to get people OFF welfare rather than seeking to keep them on it, conditions for all of these kids would likely improve greatly. I know that is a long way from where we are today, and we have a whole generation of people who need to be re-oriented in life, but we need to start, for THEIR sakes. I detest the waste we make of all this human potential and the kids are the most distressing part of it. I'm not cheap or heartless, I just understand how terrible government dependence is, on both sides of the cash flow.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment