you just mentioned no romeny gaffes.

also i find it funny that Tingle admitted that if Obama would have listened to MSNBC talking points, he wouldve done better.

Agreed. I'm not looking for an increase of even 5, or even 2.5%. Just closing some loopholes that don't help anyone, or reducing offset taxes like capital gains by 5%, and an increase of 1%. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if the rich had their sales tax added as an offset.

The rich should be rewarded for spending money, not hoarding it.
I would like a break in the payroll tax, I would like breaks for every extra person who is hired. For example, the percentage of income you pay on payroll (minus the execs) is the percentage of taxed revenue you can defer. I mean wow, that would fix so much. So simple. Companies wouldn't say 'let's hire the cheapest labor possible', they'd say, 'for every dollar extra we spend on our payroll, we can defer another 30% of taxes, why not get capable employees?'.

The more we spend on our payroll and number of workers the better the tax offset we get.

Simply taxing a company less doesn't solve anything. You need to incentivize.

Not really gaffes, just things that were brought up... ducks were flying and obama didn't even have his gun aimed.

Like the 716 billion from medicare thing, Paul Ryan, mitt's own running mate wanted to remove that exact number, right?
So many opportunities missed.

you realize no one actually paid those rates, right?

Whatever the case, it certainly didn't scare anyone off. We had high labor union enrollment, too, and it wasn't poisonous.

It's a weird day when the Left is talking about the 50's from a nostalgic point of view, but economically, that was Our time to prove that our system can work. Not since Reagan came in and began massive upward wealth redistribution

That's the big flaw in BOTH economic plans.

You can stimulate the economy all you want but it's not going to be worth a sack of beans unless there is demand.

1) Right now there is very little demand.  People who get extra stimulus money, even regular people are just sitting on it and paying off debt.

2)  Stimulus money is temporary, so those who DO spend it don't help the economy, because companies KNOW that money is going to dry up.

3) Due to lack of demand, richer people with money are investing... but in long term projects... and there is a huge run to social which is essentially ways to make money without many jobs and without much spending of money.

We won't get jobs until there is steady increased demand by consumers.  So we either need price deflation, or people to get used to "where we are" and live a little more.

Which isn't going to happen when we're activly trying to increase inflation and throwing around fix all plans to remind people how bad the economy is, and convince people there is a quick fix/ things might get worse so we gotta prepare.

Essentially we're running headlong away from what could actually fix the problem just to pretend there isn't a problem.

It's like a kid who spills something and hides it instead of telling their parent.  The spill gets worse and worse and sets in, and who knows what other crazy shit he does to hide the spill that causes more trouble.

Pretty soon we'll be Japan and there will be NOTHING we can do to get the spill out.

I haven't seen any studies associated to this but I suspect that unreported inflation results in increases of income inequality ...

People who earn less generally have less control over the amount of money they earn. Most high income people have some direct control over their income, middle income people tend to have indirect control over their income, and low income people have very limited control over their income. Hypothetically speaking, if you have reported inflation at 3% when real inflation is at 9% the low income people will likely be getting wage increases at (roughly) 3%, middle income people will be able to negotiate a (roughly) 6% wage increase, and high income people may be able to negotiate 9% (or more).

Essentially, in my current position I can (and probably will) leave my current job because I can earn 10% to 20% more per year than I currently do because my wage has not kept up with inflation; and my company would be forced to match that to keep me or find a replacement (indirect control). If I was a contractor I would be earning far more and also be able to control my income directly by increasing my rates. In contrast, if I was a lowly janitor working for minimum wage getting the company to give me a cost of living increase would be difficult because they could easily find someone else to do the job for exactly what they were paying me.

It was an OK debate, Both were about the same really, not much in it. I think the debate would be better if Gary Johnson (libertarian) and Jill Stein (green) were there. If people knew about these alternatives, i'm sure they would get more votes. But it's surprising how much they focus on the economy and healthcare so much. They need to talk about the environment, energy, the war and immigration more. I still don't like Romney but he could be an OK president.

I sort of felt sorry for Obama last night as he got crushed on almost everything in the Presidential Debate. Well maybe not, but it was brutal. What did Obama except when his policies have failed, he hasn't kept the majority of his promises, and he can't explain why he spent $6 Trillion of the tax payers money and the economy is not better?

The spin today already is that "Obama didn't show up," and "he was off his game," and "this happens to everyone sometimes"...WHAT? The ONLY thing Obama IS good at is public speaking and debating (well maybe just campaigning) and he failed bad!

Again, what can the guy really say when the last 4 years nothing is better and overseas turmoil is at an all time high with NO U.S. involvement? I think he needs to cool down and play yet another round of golf to "get back on his game."

Not to mention economic and cultural domination of practically the entire world.