# The first presidential debate: 10/3/2012 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 3, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602 "2012-10-03T17:16:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/521 "2012-10-05T01:03:12Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This. I’m a Romney supporter, but Obama should have his hand smacked for letting this one go. > > If I’m a small business owner, and you lower my marginal tax rate but eliminate my deductions so that I end up paying the same tax, how in the hell does that help me hire more people? Why, Gov. Romney, does it matter how the numbers are placed on the tax return if the total at the bottom is the same? Well, the theory is that people are incentivized more in regards to their marginal rate more than the total amount of tax they are paying. E.g., if they know that on the next dollar that they earn, they are only going to pay 28% tax rather than 35% tax, then they will be more motivated to earn more. So, it is not just the total amount of money they are left with after taxes but also how that would change if they earned, say, another $10000. (I was going to say $1000, but I realized that’s just like a penny in Romneyland.) I’m not saying I agree with the supply side claims, which I don’t think there is much economic evidence to support (at least of having a very big effect), but in theory jiggling the tax structure around in this way could incentivize people differently. Besides which, it seems to me that if we really want to give people incentives, we should really target the incentives to what we want. If we want people to “create jobs” then give them a direct incentive to hire people, rather than throwing tax breaks or vague incentives at them and hoping that they might use some of it to do something we find socially useful. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/522 "2012-10-05T01:08:26Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Not exactly. That’s the last one at Lynn University in Boca. The next one is a [**Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy**](http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/). Still, Obama should do much better, both due to the format and the latitude of the topics. > > Personally, I’m most interested in the last one @Lynn. Ah, my mistake then. I was going off someone else’s report and hadn’t actually looked it up myself. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/523 "2012-10-05T01:22:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not really that bad. It’s true Romney’s numbers don’t add up, but tax reform is primarily na issue for Congress to decide. Obama’s numbers in his health care plan didn’t add up. They didn’t even exist! He rightly noted that Congress would have to work out the details. It is sufficient to know that Romney wants to cut deductions and tax rates. And he wants to do it without reducing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class. that means a lot less rate reduction than he wants, but it doesn’t mean his plan is completely useless. No…That is what Romney SAYS he wants to do (now). There is no evidence of what he actually wants to do…And, there is every evidence that he will come up [“studies” by a bunch of shills](http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/) (most of which weren’t studies but opinion pieces and some that apparently didn’t conclude what he claimed they did) to support the idea that he is doing that, while respectable tax policy experts know that the actual effects will be a hug windfall for the rich plus an increase in the deficit. If you have negative credibility then you damned well better be specific. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/524 "2012-10-05T01:26:14Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, the theory is that people are incentivized more in regards to their marginal rate more than the total amount of tax they are paying. Wrong. Job creators are motivated to hire new employees by the bottom line, not by some fast shuffle between falling rates and fewer deductions. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/525 "2012-10-05T01:38:15Z")
> [@Troutsqueezer](#): > > There ain’t no political geniuses hanging around Straight Dope, that’s for sure. Look folks, a regular Niccolò Machiavelli! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/526 "2012-10-05T01:42:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s a bit much. One was prepared and one wasn’t. So . . . Obama, if he’s prepared? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/527 "2012-10-05T02:04:38Z")
Here’s some of that ammo I was talking about: Romney’s [claim](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) during the debate about pre-existing conditions was false. > [@](#): > > After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance. > > The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back. Oh, and the [claim](Mitt Romney culled statistics from a small subset of loan guarantee recipients to come up with his claim Wednesday night that “about half” of the renewable energy companies backed by the Obama administration “have gone out of business.” As POLITICO and other fact-checkers quickly pointed out, Romney’s numbers from the first presidential debate are not correct. Not even close. Read more: [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82031.html#ixzz28Nzbf5CL](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82031.html#ixzz28Nzbf5CL)) about “green” energy companies going out of business? He got that wrong too. > [@](#): > > Mitt Romney culled statistics from a small subset of loan guarantee recipients to come up with his claim Wednesday night that “about half” of the renewable energy companies backed by the Obama administration “have gone out of business.” As POLITICO and other fact-checkers quickly pointed out, Romney’s numbers from the first presidential debate are not correct. Not even close. Can Romney ever open his mouth without lies coming out? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/528 "2012-10-05T02:23:46Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Can Romney ever open his mouth without lies coming out? So negative! Look on the bright side…He hardly ever tells lies with his mouth closed. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/529 "2012-10-05T02:31:21Z")
I have an idea. How 'bout for the next debate, the Democrats get [this guy](http://www.upworthy.com/was-that-debate-boring-yes-was-this-critics-response-awesome-indeed?g=2&c=ufb1), instead? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/530 "2012-10-05T02:36:07Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > So negative! Look on the bright side…He hardly ever tells lies with his mouth closed. Well, he could sign! ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/531 "2012-10-05T03:00:51Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > **Well, the theory is that people are incentivized more in regards to their marginal rate more than the total amount of tax they are paying. E.g., if they know that on the next dollar that they earn, they are only going to pay 28% tax rather than 35% tax, then they will be more motivated to earn more**. So, it is not just the total amount of money they are left with after taxes but also how that would change if they earned, say, another $10000. (I was going to say $1000, but I realized that’s just like a penny in Romneyland.) > > . I don’t have time to research it at work - but I thought (as you seem to be alluding to) that this theory had been pretty much debunked and discredited - that the tax rate has very little to do with how “motivated” people are to work ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/532 "2012-10-05T03:09:18Z")
I’ve been planning to vote third party for President (I live in a solid ‘red’ state), and neither candidate did anything to change my mind. In my view, there was no clear winner. Romney had better stage presence and tenacity, but also shook the Etch-A-Sketch vigorously and was quite pushy with the so-called moderator. I concur with other posts that Obama was passive and detached, although he was at least consistent with his campaign messaging of the past several months. The liberal talking heads seem to be too critical of Obama. Apparently, AARP was not happy with the name drop on support of ‘Obamacare’. Romney’s taking a lot of heat today for his targeting of Big Bird. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/533 "2012-10-05T03:27:55Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So . . . Obama, if he’s prepared? … will probably do a bit better? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/534 "2012-10-05T03:52:22Z")
Dammit! Now my “Romney Tapes” thread is now the all-time third most-replied to thread in this forum. Who’s the bastard who tipped the scales? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/535 "2012-10-05T03:54:41Z")
I gotta wonder about this whole winning thing. How are we determining that? Is it something visual, and because I heard it on radio I don’t see it? Is it a chimpanzee thing, like dominant and submissive postures, who displayed the best hooting? Because its a debate, a conflict of sorts, do we judge by who is most aggressive? Romney delivered a gift-wrapped box of sound bites for the Obama team to pour over, it was an abundance of mendacity, an avalanche of horseshit. Why rebut him now when you can simply display the stupid over and over, at your leisure? Mittens gonna fire Big Bird? Now there’s a gift that will keep on giving. And all the lies with dollar signs, $716 billion dollars from Medicare, $90 billion on green energy, half the companies going broke… Too specific, Mittens, too specific! Good liars give details, but really good liars don’t. People will check, Willard. You think you had a good night? You know who had a great night? The guys who get paid to write the copy for the attack ads about you. For them, you were Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny, all rolled up into one. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/536 "2012-10-05T04:05:40Z")
The New York Times says that Obama’s failure to mention the 47% remark may have been intentional: > [@](#): > > Mr. Axelrod said the president was prepared to talk about what was viewed as Mr. Obama’s biggest omission on Wednesday, Mr. Romney’s secretly recorded comments at a closed-door fund-raising event about the “47 percent” of Americans he described as too reliant on government. While Mr. Axelrod said Mr. Obama simply never found an opportunity, another aide offered another suggestion: To have done so would have given Mr. Romney an opening to undo the political damage of the remarks with a certain, planned answer before a huge television audience of 67.2 million. Romney instead went on Hannity tonight and said that his remarks were “completely wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/537 "2012-10-05T04:33:28Z")
Maddow made an interesting point on her show tonight–if you go back to 1976 there are seven debates where an incumbent president went up against his challenger for the first time. The record for the incumbents, according to consensus at the time? 1-6. Bill Clinton pretty easily bested Bob Dole in that first debate, but otherwise the incumbents come up short. Even in 1984, before his legendary spanking, Walter Mondale bested Reagan in their first debate. This makes sense to me. The incumbent has the disadvantage of having reality on his side, while the challenger can lob missiles from that magical land where everything is perfect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/538 "2012-10-05T04:43:34Z")
Also the incumbent has a day job that I understand takes quite a bit of his time. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/539 "2012-10-05T05:08:28Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > This makes sense to me. The incumbent has the disadvantage of having reality on his side, while the challenger can lob missiles from that magical land where everything is perfect. This same thought crossed my mind as well. Sometimes, I thought I could see Obama thinking how naive or jejune Mitt was appearing to him, behind those pinched lips and clenched tongue. A very different Obama than we saw four years earlier. I don’t care who “won” this debate, or the future ones, it just seemed he was pulling his punches to get a feel for his opponent this round. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602/540 "2012-10-05T05:46:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I gotta wonder about this whole winning thing. How are we determining that? Is it something visual, and because I heard it on radio I don’t see it? Is it a chimpanzee thing, like dominant and submissive postures, who displayed the best hooting? Because its a debate, a conflict of sorts, do we judge by who is most aggressive? > > Romney delivered a gift-wrapped box of sound bites for the Obama team to pour over, it was an abundance of mendacity, an avalanche of horseshit. Why rebut him now when you can simply display the stupid over and over, at your leisure? > > Mittens gonna fire Big Bird? Now there’s a gift that will keep on giving. And all the lies with dollar signs, $716 billion dollars from Medicare, $90 billion on green energy, half the companies going broke… Too specific, Mittens, too specific! Good liars give details, but really good liars don’t. People will check, Willard. > > You think you had a good night? You know who had a great night? The guys who get paid to write the copy for the attack ads about you. For them, you were Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny, all rolled up into one. Simple - base on this debate, and this debate alone, I would be voting for Mitt. I am just hoping that his lies, position changes and misrepresentations in the debates can be used effectively by the Obama campaign to get more traction in the coming days etc, than trying to combat them on the spot otherwise would have done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-first-presidential-debate-10-3-2012/636602.md?page=28)