"cutting programs that are essential to the health and prosperity of our nation"

Any chance you can list these?

@R K "I don't think so but that's what they're saying on Fox news."

Did you even watch it?

For ANYONE to think that Romney did not win that debate is absurd. And if you really do think Obama won, do the country a favor and don't vote this year. You're clueless.

@ Ernie

"While I, too, am beginning to feel sorry for Obama, it's certainly not because he's out of his depth."

This is when i realized you were pulling my leg.

Maybe I'm not understanding your original premise, but I never said anything about seniors. I am discussing people that will be covered by individual mandates. Was this not what you were discussing?

My bad.

Same $hit, different day.
Opening my mouth on this thread is what I get for not going surfing today.

Craig - I am voting for you for President of BPL. Relax.

Lets discuss. It's fun.

BTW, I thought this was an interesting comment from Al Gore:

"Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today — just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know..."

Ouch. Even Gore is admitting that Obama's debate was not ideal.

Ah well, a few more to go.

"The fact that some banks were forced to take the bailout (i.e. Wells Fargo) was a forcefed attempt at a social program that wasn't required. Big business? You mean like those in the Auto Industry? Like Ford, that didn't even need nor want a bailout and were thankfully permitted to opt out. GM is in trouble again. Do they need another bailout? You paying?..."

The bailouts were a good thing

Both Bush and Obama did them

The Republicans whose #1 priority was voting against anything Obama, voted for the bailouts

The banks quit lending because they didn't know who would go bankrupt next. The system totally froze up. It required government intervention to reassure businesses that the system would recover.

Ford just happened to get a major refinancing before the crisis so they didn't need credit. It was part luck. Although Ford seems to have been better run in a number of other ways too.

If GM had gone bankrupt (like Romney advocated in an editorial, that he now contradicts because that's what's required to get elected) and they laid everyone off, then all their suppliers would have gone bankrupt, and then Ford would have gone bankrupt. And the rest of the economy would have followed. We would have re-lived the 1930s. Who knows how that would all play out.

Now that the crisis is over it's easy to say they should have just let them fail.

And it's easy to say they should have done it differently. It seems like they were too easy on the banks. They made good all AIGs insurance policies to banks without making the banks take more of a hit. And afterwords, the Fed created money out of thin air and lent it to banks which loaned it to others at higher rate so they made huge profits which enabled them to recover - it's all a rigged game.

But, they did avert the crisis...

"But, they did avert the crisis..."

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, they provided a band aid solution funded by printing money supply but have not at all stopped the bleeding that continues today.

" they provided a band aid solution funded by printing money supply but have not at all stopped the bleeding that continues today"

I agree - but we now have a chronic problem

The crisis - no bank would lend any money to anyone - is averted

Since the problem is not critical, political deadlock prevents any solution

@ Jerry

"The banks quit lending because they didn't know who would go bankrupt next. The system totally froze up. It required government intervention to reassure businesses that the system would recover."

J this is so far off base that I can't even begin to address it. Banks in mainstream America try to lend money to borrowers that are able to repay. This is how they make their money which in turn rewards the investors for risking their capital. Without getting into regulations, most of the tightening of credit was due to the fubared policies and oversight of congress and the lack of confidence in the economy.

The government didn't stabilize anything. It created the instability in the first place. The bailouts are BS and I think Bush will admit now that his part in the first one was a mistake. I'm involved in a highly regulated industry. Don't let that fool you...the regulations are costing us (that includes you) billions and do very little to safe the system. Looking for an industry that's inefficient, frequentally in trouble, is prone to scandal and corruption and seems to always be in the news? Find a highly regulated one.

I knew we wouldn't agree for very long

Do you agree that removing Glass Stegal was a big part of the problem?

"Do you agree that removing Glass Stegal was a big part of the problem?"

Super duper short version:
Govt-insured banks and their deposits, was not a significant source of the problem. Consolidations were taking place before GS was repealed. So I guess the simple answer to your complex question is NO.

@ RS

Not only did I watch it but more importantly I listened carefully to what was being said. Mr. Romney certainly did look confident and well composed which, if that's how you're judging, then yea he won. If you're judging by content, consistency and understand of economics then Obama won by a long shot.

Mr. Romney stated he would not cut taxes for the top 1% earners, yet he has previously stated, many times, that he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%. So which one is it? The tax policy center has analyzed his plan and stated that his will cost the average family more money, not less like he stated last night. He didn't mention any of the loopholes he would close either.

He said he's for the "pursuit of happiness for all" yet he firmly stand against g** marriage. Yea, that makes sense.

So why would I vote for someone who I don't know where they stand? I'm not willing to roll the dice like that. It just seems like he will say anything, regardless of truth, to get your vote. That's no way to "win" a debate.

From one clueless guy to another, RS, I won't vote if you don't. ;)

No one even seem to notice Gary wasn't in the debate.

"Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html

I understood a big problem to be that banks were (and still are) making large profits selling derivatives on mortgages.

So they need more mortgages.

The profit they make off the derivatives way exceeds the profit they make from the mortgages.

Therefore, there's no big motivation to make sure the mortgages are good - just get them done so they can package into derivatives

Then, Brooksley Born, the Commodity Futures Trading Commision head recognized there was a huge amount of derivative exposure that could cause bank meltdown and tried to regulate which was her responsibility, but the weazel Alan Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, and SEC chairman Levit conspired to shut her down, which they did, so she quit. Greenspan made his comment about the free market and knowledgeable investors. This was all under Clinton but the congress was Republican and exerted a lot of pressure.

Then they passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley which completely repealed Glass-Stegal which opened the door to more mischief - passed by Republicans and signed by Clinton.

Under Bush there was more deregulation.

Then, as Born had figured out, it happened and the banks melted down. Levit admitted Born was right and regretted conspiring against Born. Greenspan admitted he was wrong but has since reneged - the weazel.

I get most of my information from watching "Frontline" on the "Communist" PBS.

Glass Stegal seperates investment banks (that do derivatives) from savings banks (that do mortgages) so it avoids all this. This happened before, in the 1930s, which precipitated the law.

"Mr. Romney stated he would not cut taxes for the top 1% earners, yet he has previously stated, many times, that he will cut taxes 20% across the board, including the top 1%."

There's an evil genious to that

For sure Obama planned on how to shoot down Romney 20% ($5 Trillion) tax cut plan.

But how could Obama respond when Romney said "I never proposed a $5 Trillion cut".

It takes "cojones" for Romney to say that - I'll give him that.

Like Goebel said - if you're going to say a lie, make it a big one, it will be so fantastic that people will have to believe you. I'm channeling FDR now...

Isn't it ironic, that after getting whipped in the debate, the left cries foul? I loved the first accusations of Romney bullying the moderator and taking more time. When that didn't stand up as Obama used about 4.5 minutes more, they move on to saying all Romney did was lie. Also really like the claim that the elevation effected Obama. Thats a good one.

Its just one debate, man up left. you lost but you have a chance to redeem yourself.

"I'm afraid you're right, Romney looked better."

I wouldn't call it whipped though.

I was listening to MSNBC and other liberal places a little afterwords and my impression was that they all were depressed how badly Obama did.

In Obama's senate office, prominantly displayed, was the iconic photo of Ali looming over Foreman after knocking him out.

Ali's rope-a-dope was letting Foreman punch away until he got tired, then Ali knocked him out

Maybe that's the Obama-Romney debate