![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here we go - one debate complete, two to go, apparently. This is entirely from reading the transcript of the debate, available from several sources depending on your ideological preferences. Having been exposed to clips of the two gentlemen speaking for most of the year, I'm filling in their mannerisms, gestures, and tones of voice as I go. That said, I'm mostly going to be going on what was said and not how it was said.
Generally speaking: Governor Romney, the time for "trust me" statements about what your plans are and the plans of your running mate is over. From this point forward, the response to any statement about having a plan without producing said plan, with details, is "put up or shut up." Respectfully. And no, the previous instances of non-pllans without details don't count as "having a plan."
An interesting choice to use the phrase "trickle-down government" from Governor Romney, considering the general associations of "trickle-down economics" that liberals have.
Also, I get the strong feeling that I've just read the equivalent of the Zero Content Example trope. Perhaps it's a bit too much of me to expect them to come prepared with some citations, or at least to stay on details enough to give us an idea of what they're planning on doing, but it would be nice if the debates had at least the trappings of being a place where candidates laid out their plans.
More specifially: Governor Romney, while it's an excellent point to note that studies will differ, it is generally considered good to source your studies so that we can detemine whether you are using good studies or not. Good that you do so later.
Claiming that you will reduce rates while maintaining the share of monies that the rich pay to the government is a tricky thing, Governor - it usually involves collateral damage. Also, we do believe you want to lower rates, but we don't beleive you when you say you'll close loopholes that only affect the rich. If that were anywhere near true, you wouldn't be your party's nominee.
I want to know where the President gets the $5 trillion tax cut + $2 trillion defence spending from. Given the lack of plans present on the Republican side, there has to be an extrapolation here somewhere. Maybe it's the Ryan plan from a year or two ago?
Governor Romney, basically saying that you plan to favor the top 3 percent because you beleive them to be "job creators" over the other 97 percent is not a smart rhetorical position to take. You have to be bigger-tent than that if you want to avoid, well, minimize, the perception of you as a rich man fighting for the rich against everyone else. The President is correct - specifics are a wonderful, wonderful thing when it comes to having an honest discussion about things.
It is a very cold thing to say to a PBS anchor that you intend to kill the PBS subsidy. Furthermore, when it comes to "is it worth borrowing from China", I would think that increased military expenditures would not pass the test, for the simple reason of "Why go into economic hock against someone you want to crack down on for trade imbalances and other economic matters?"
It's also fairly cold to tell the younger voters that they should expect major changes to their Social Security and Medicare programs while letting all the people who are currently on it go as normal. "Change" in this case can only be a negative thing, and that will make the people receiving the "change" not particularly like you for it.
Also, the back-and-forth about an "unelected panel" that would dictate what kind of care people get - that's the "death panels" argument, just without using those terms. It's interesting how much the Republican candidate and party believe that government is so bad for people...considering how many countries do it quite fine, thank you. And how insurance companies also use unelected boards to dictate what kind of care people get, and the people have much less ability to change those people out.
And then another "repeal and replace" with the Dodd-Frank regulation. Put up or shut up. Respectfully.
Both of the candidates are talking past the issue when it comes to education - there's nobody even talking about the neighborhoods, or the funding, or the general issues of whether we're testing for the right things, but only about the monies involved in university and technical education. You both missed the point there.
And I'm inclined to believe that the partisanship problems will continue, regardless of who gets elected, because there are far too many incentives for the opposition to sandbag rather than actually let the government work.
...huh. I seem to be harsher on Romney than Obama. Then again, I've has lots of reasons to be harsh about him.
Generally speaking: Governor Romney, the time for "trust me" statements about what your plans are and the plans of your running mate is over. From this point forward, the response to any statement about having a plan without producing said plan, with details, is "put up or shut up." Respectfully. And no, the previous instances of non-pllans without details don't count as "having a plan."
An interesting choice to use the phrase "trickle-down government" from Governor Romney, considering the general associations of "trickle-down economics" that liberals have.
Also, I get the strong feeling that I've just read the equivalent of the Zero Content Example trope. Perhaps it's a bit too much of me to expect them to come prepared with some citations, or at least to stay on details enough to give us an idea of what they're planning on doing, but it would be nice if the debates had at least the trappings of being a place where candidates laid out their plans.
More specifially: Governor Romney, while it's an excellent point to note that studies will differ, it is generally considered good to source your studies so that we can detemine whether you are using good studies or not. Good that you do so later.
Claiming that you will reduce rates while maintaining the share of monies that the rich pay to the government is a tricky thing, Governor - it usually involves collateral damage. Also, we do believe you want to lower rates, but we don't beleive you when you say you'll close loopholes that only affect the rich. If that were anywhere near true, you wouldn't be your party's nominee.
I want to know where the President gets the $5 trillion tax cut + $2 trillion defence spending from. Given the lack of plans present on the Republican side, there has to be an extrapolation here somewhere. Maybe it's the Ryan plan from a year or two ago?
Governor Romney, basically saying that you plan to favor the top 3 percent because you beleive them to be "job creators" over the other 97 percent is not a smart rhetorical position to take. You have to be bigger-tent than that if you want to avoid, well, minimize, the perception of you as a rich man fighting for the rich against everyone else. The President is correct - specifics are a wonderful, wonderful thing when it comes to having an honest discussion about things.
It is a very cold thing to say to a PBS anchor that you intend to kill the PBS subsidy. Furthermore, when it comes to "is it worth borrowing from China", I would think that increased military expenditures would not pass the test, for the simple reason of "Why go into economic hock against someone you want to crack down on for trade imbalances and other economic matters?"
It's also fairly cold to tell the younger voters that they should expect major changes to their Social Security and Medicare programs while letting all the people who are currently on it go as normal. "Change" in this case can only be a negative thing, and that will make the people receiving the "change" not particularly like you for it.
Also, the back-and-forth about an "unelected panel" that would dictate what kind of care people get - that's the "death panels" argument, just without using those terms. It's interesting how much the Republican candidate and party believe that government is so bad for people...considering how many countries do it quite fine, thank you. And how insurance companies also use unelected boards to dictate what kind of care people get, and the people have much less ability to change those people out.
And then another "repeal and replace" with the Dodd-Frank regulation. Put up or shut up. Respectfully.
Both of the candidates are talking past the issue when it comes to education - there's nobody even talking about the neighborhoods, or the funding, or the general issues of whether we're testing for the right things, but only about the monies involved in university and technical education. You both missed the point there.
And I'm inclined to believe that the partisanship problems will continue, regardless of who gets elected, because there are far too many incentives for the opposition to sandbag rather than actually let the government work.
...huh. I seem to be harsher on Romney than Obama. Then again, I've has lots of reasons to be harsh about him.
