Group items tagged

I think this is a big part of this article: "there are now officially more jobs in the U.S. than when Obama took office." Yes, we need more, and any unemployment at all isn't a good thing, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what matters. The Republicans can't say that Obama has done nothing, because there's clearly some improvement.

I think this is an accomplishment and "the trajectory clearly indicates a recovery" but am not sure why this is related back to the debate. I thought Romney answered the questions more thoroughly and didn't shy away as much as Obama did. Overall, I thought Romney did a better job even though I don't agree with every thing he said. Just because these numbers came out doesn't mean Romney didn't debate successfully.

Hmm. I think that it could be a bad move for Romney to offend such large companies, especially because they are "job creators" and could be some of his largest allies. It may have seemed like a good move in the moment, but I don't think that it will be beneficial in the long run. Also, it doesn't bode well that GM and Chrysler kind of disproved Romney's message.

It's hard to say. I think it could go either way and from my point of view, I hope that those seeing the ad with also see the message from the companies saying it is not true. if not, it just might be beneficial for Romney's campaign.

Sabrina, I think for the many families struggling to put food on the table, yes their main concern is jobs. I'm still curious how Obama's track record will effect this election. I wonder if Romney will have somewhat of an advantage because he hasn't had some of the "failure" that Obama has with getting things done in congress. Do you think people are hopeful that Obama can fix the hold ups in Congress? This quote sums it up why some people think will happen again. "The president just cannot work with Congress to finally get the job done. He says he would. He said he would before and he didn't,"

On one hand, creating jobs is an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and it's certainly not the only part of the campaign. On the other hand, if Obama specifically promised to lower unemployment by a certain amount, it's frustrating that he hasn't been able to. But you can't take that as the only fact in the question "are you better off than you were four years ago?".

Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s

ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.

Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...

Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.

In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.

Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co

But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

This was an interesting article but I feel like it simplified a lot of the issues that Obama was being criticized on. While he didn't create as many jobs as he set out to, he did create many and it seems nit picky to me to discredit him because they were "low-income" jobs.

This article isn't discrediting Obama because the jobs he created were "low-income" jobs, but because the many low-income jobs that he created replaced the middle wage jobs that were there before they were lost during the recession.

What's most interesting about this article to me is that the Huffington Post, which is very liberal, is very openly criticizing Obama. I think this says a lot for their integrity and not just reporting news that supports their opinions.

This is getting totally blown out of proportion. Romney was just using Big Bird as an example of something that he would like to cut-and whether you approve of those cuts is another matter-but it wasn't like he was attacking Big Bird or its creators. I think this is an example of people latching on to the most colorful thing said in the debate and making it seem like the biggest issue of the election.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. The quote "Big Bird is an important part of every child's education" also seems a bit ridiculous although I do love Sesame Street. I do think debates are a great time to observe the candidates (like Yadira said) but it doesn't seem like this is an effective use of the discussion afterwards.

Agreeing with what has been said, it was one small comment that got totally blown out of proportion. After the debate I was watching some commentary on it and heard a lot being mentioned about that comment. Apparently, throughout the debate after it was said, twitter was cluttered with people discussing that singular comment. According to one of the news reporters I was watching discuss the debate (who I do not remember the name of), she said that in this debate it particular, and partially because Obama not going for making so many jokes (as Danielle's article talks about), this was one of the few things viewers were able to blow out and discuss which is why it has gotten so much attention.

I thought this article summarized pretty much how I felt about the debate. They both did a good job and were fairly evenly matched but in my opinion, Biden may have done just a tiny bit better. That being said the poll asking people who they thought won (taken of the people who watched the debate) confirmed my suspicion that many republican viewers thought Ryan did as well, if not better than Biden.

I thought Biden and Ryan's debate was completely different from the presidential debate. I know many democrats were disappointed in Obama's lack of critical response to Romney's points, arguing that he could have shot them all down easily and logically. Biden seemed to compensate for that completely, making Ryan seem like he didn't really know what he was talking about. What I thought was interesting about this debate, though, was that who won seems completely subjective based on personality equally if not more than policy. Many might thing Ryan won because Biden was laughing in a perhaps rude way the whole time, while many might think Biden won because he deserved to laugh at Ryan for saying things that didn't entirely make sense. I think this almost has more to do with personality preference than policy preference because in our debate chat room, where most of us were democrats, there were arguments both that the laughing was rude and that the laughing was called for, passionate, and helpful in Biden's claim. Overall, Biden's casualness was a great contrast to the formal, almost scripted attitude of Ryan. This is why the debate seems to be so varied in public response, and to me, why it depends on what the individual listener wants to hear to decide who really won the debate.

In my opinion, Biden won, but it certainly wasn't a runaway like it was for Romney. I agree with you all that they were pretty evenly matched, and that a lot of who won is based on who you already like. I don't think that this debate will have a significant impact on the election.

I believe that Biden won for his ability to: connect to the viewers, shoot down all of Ryan's ideas, and emphasize all of the good things that have happened under his and Obama's office. Like Sabrina said, however, Biden did not blow away the competition like Romney did to Obama, but he did seem to do better than Ryan. Also, like Sabrina said, this debate won't mean much to the voters even though they did raise some policy issues.

Personally, this debate did mean something to me as a voter. It did not make me want to change my position or anything, but it did boost my confidence in my already-made choices. I am wondering if this has become more of the reasoning behind these debates, or if they are still created to make people decide on who they are voting for?

"Early voting is a major component of Obama's mobilization strategy, and is useful for ensuring that supporters who may have trouble getting to a polling station next month end up casting their ballots." This quote is really interesting and timely because of the storm that is about to spread across the east coast. I know early decision college applications have been pushed further out so I wonder what will happen if the election falls during this bad upcoming storm. Voting early seems to help many people who would not otherwise be able to get to the polls, but at some point-doesn't the process have to be standardized?

This was really interesting to me particularly after reading it just after posting my most recent article against early voting. Obama's campaign has been pushing hard for people to vote early in the opinion of Scott Paulson, it is an advantage to Obama. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I am also curious why it would be good for Obama to have his supporters vote early but Romney isn't pushing it?

I would hate to think that Obama payed tribute to Chavez to strengthen his campaign. I think as president, it seems in his "job description" to honor the National Monument. And sure, this might have given him an opportunity to re-connect with some Hispanic voters, but I don't think it's fair to constantly scrutinize every "nice" move he or Romney does.

Of course there will be suspicion in generous actions performed by either candidate in terms of their how genuine they are, just as colleges might be suspicious about the multitudes extracurricular activities we list on our applications. I would say this move is more positive than negative, regardless of whether or not he actually felt passionate about it, one because it is better than just ignoring certain cultures that exist in America, and two because "empathy" (as we read in Obama's book) and cultural connection is something Obama emphasizes in his campaign.

I agree and I think it is impossible to say the tribute was for one specific reason or another. Avoiding the question of if it was for his campaign or not, I think it sounded like an inspirational and nice event.

I actually can't wait until thursday's debate, I think it will be just as exciting as the first one was. Ryan is extremely intelligent and a statistical slammer, so it should be interesting to see how he debates.

I think that, like mentioned in the debate, their views on equal pay and hiring women can also play a huge role in who women vote for. Additionally, though, women are people: they have the same desire for a strong economy and a safe country just like men. I think that Obama's campaign probably appeals more to women as they are women, but Romney's campaign may appeal more to women as they are people.

Interesting point Sabrina and I agree. I'd like to add though that it's interesting how Obama is taking the comedian approach to these issues. At least from this article, I definitely took the event to sound like a place I would have been laughing a lot. I wonder if that is the best approach to handling the situation or if he would be more successful emphasizing the issues with a serious tone?

If Romney wants to get a solid female fan base, he defiantly needs to get more with Obama's stances on abortion and birth control. Does he need to get more comedic? Maybe some other person would say so, but I personally prefer a leader who does not waste time telling jokes or stories about his family, to me it is unprofessional. I don't want someone relatable, I want someone who does their job well and is known for that. This stage in the game Americans can't afford to be presented with the opportunity to pick someone based on who seems more relatable, they need numbers.

I agree with you Savannah, that at this late stage in the game it is very important for candidates to provide numbers and statistics while they are campaigning but I think that it is just as important for them make themselves relatable to the people who will be voting for them. An example of this is Romney's sister, Lynn, who has a child with Down Syndrome and he talks about the many difficulties that she faces along with the support she receives from himself and the rest of his family. These stories had a strong effect on some female voters in Ohio and I believe if Romney continues with this milder strategy of making himself seem more relatable to the people, he will have a better chance at winning this election.

I think that as the incumbent Obama has automatically been criticized more easily. Romney can say basically anything but has not been president whereas Obama can be attacked for anything and everything he has done. Romney's changing opinions I think can be seen one of two ways: concerning or sometimes brave for allowing his opinions/beliefs to change publicly with time. I think those supporters of Romney will forgive his wavering whereas Obama supporters will not. I'm unsure how the swing voters will react to this...we'll have to wait and find out.

I'm not sure what I feel about the government investing. I don't think I know enough about this topic to weigh in.

Eli, what part of the article did you find subjective/biased? I thought it gave a relatively neutral overview of the messages from his convention speech.

I, too, found the article somewhat subjective in the tone of the writing. As far as the content goes, it was interesting how so much of the election campaigns are based on the people's ignorance or unawareness. For example, Romney referring to our current economy as the "Obama economy", even though it is not the direct result of Obama's economical beliefs/plans, is effective through its inaccuracy because many people listening to his speech are probably unaware of how the economy got to where it is today.

This article does a good job of pointing out the disappointment that many Americans are probably feelings towards the government, but I agree with Eli that the tone is very Liberal. This was especially apparent in phrases like this one: " the GOP convention showed how broadly Republican leaders and delegates loathe the president". I also liked the point that you can like someone personally and still disagree with them politically-this is an email that comes up a lot in Democratic speeches. It was also interesting to read about whether Romney is running as a business man or a governor.

This article helped me go more in depth into Romney's speech as it analyzed what he was trying to say. The article brought into focus how all of Romney's key points are directly against what Obama has done so far as well as what Obama plans to do in the future.

Although Obama stresses the positive outcomes from "reviving" General Motive,s I'm wondering why he didn't (maybe it just wasn't discussed in this article) continue talking about the jobs he will create. The unemployment rate is still high despite the Auto-industry bailout and I would think Ohio needs to hear what he WILL do along with what he has accomplished.

I think Obama is making a smart move to reflect on the improvements he has made in Ohio, but I agree with Danielle that it's strange that he doesn't mention future progress. He also revisits a risky idea that he mentioned in his DNC speech: that the road to recovery is long and far from easy, and we're just starting.