they both talked over the moderator about the same amount of times.  In the end, Obama ended up with almost 5 minutes more of speaking time than romney did.  I say Obama was on the defensive more because of the actual words they were speaking.  Obama was defending his policies a lot more than romney was defending his own.  Romney also threw out more attacks at Obama than vice versa.  

Romney wasn't defensive, he was agressive, that is what you were noticing.  There is a very large difference.  

People screaming to raise taxes even higher on the rich are crazy.

A. They already pay more taxes per year than you do in your entire lifetime.

B. They got themselves rich so they deserve to be. This idea that there should be no rich people is insane.

C. They are the ones who create jobs. Continue to tax them higher and its just going to make them ship even more jobs overseas where taxes are cheaper.

I swear theres far too many people who dont understand basic economics. This is capatalism. The rich should pay much more in taxes than the poor. Which they already do in both exact dollars as well as percentages. But they shouldnt be punished for being rich, they should be rewarded to give others insentive to strive to work harder to get there and so the rich desire to expand their businesses and hire more employees.

Some of the best times for America economically were the post World War II era, when top marginal rates were 90%

If the people see society as underfunded and unable to function, while the rich just get richer and richer, things are going to happen.

I agree Khan but that isnt whats happening. The rich arent currently getting richer.....

The income gap's grown the last two decades. The stock market has recovered drastically since 2009, but where are the jobs?

The top earners are maximizing profits while forcing everyone else a rung or two down the income ladder, with predatory hiring practices like calling 2-3 years experience "entry level." (which should be illegal)

We also didn't have the EPA, and a million government regulations to deal with. We also had a sound currency, and a much more competitive corporate tax rate.

Give our economy those things, and a higher tax rate wouldn't matter.

its not like people are arguing for something like frances 75% tax...a couple percentages wouldnt kill them and wouldnt put the rate to a drastic level... and most of them have people to play with their money so they pay far less anyways.

There are currently systemic issues, with a decent chunk in too much debt, that is dragging things down.  When an economy has systemic problems, getting rich becomes a problem.  But still, in this era, gains are going to the top, and not anyone else really.  Income growth has flatlined since the 1980s.

Now Khan I do 100% agree with you about the experience thing. Its insane to me how high even entry level job requirements currently are. Not to mention the fact that a college degree is basically a requirement now and our college system is a complete scam.

Well yeah, because your jumping on the wrong points.  There was plenty Obama could of did to debate better... a lot better.

There was plenty he could of jumped on... and had he, he would of won pretty easy.

Your examples have just been wrong, and the spin issues though.

To give you 3 quick examples....

1) Say he doesn't think it's fair that people like Donald Trump get tax breaks because they are lumped in unfairly with American's small buisnesses.

Instead of saying that its only 3% is small buisnesses, he should of said that if those 3% get hurt negativly by his tax increase, he would work on new legislation so that they are treated different from people like Donald Trump and get moved into a different tax classification.

2)  Mitt Romney's Tax Plan.  Romney put it in an apealing way, but his terms were confusing.  He said he wasn't going to decrease the rich's percentage of the tax burden, nor the middle classes.

Essentially his plan is to "grow" us out of it.   Now, if he succeeds this can mean one of two things. 

Either it grows the midde class more then the rich, in which case the middle class's share of the tax burden is actually increased, (despite the average person paying less.)   OR while more workers benefit, the rich get richer, increasing their tax burden.

So depending how Romney answers he can argue A) Romney made a factual error, and that the middle class's share of the tax rate is going to go up.  Or B) Mitt Romney's plan is going to benefit the rich the most.

3)  Mention Welfare.  He got the entitlements question and he himself cut off Welfare from the debate all together to focus on Social Security and Medicare.  After admitting that his plan doesn't effect old people... and he left Romney' statement unchallenged that said Obama's plan to just cut payments across the board and causing people to not take new patients... Medicare became a big hinderence.