I had voted nobody before watching the debate because I was interested in the results and didn't expect to find the debate on youtube. Afterward I'm changing it to Romney.

The debate was clearly in Romney's favor. Romney controlled the tone and tempo of the debate. Obama seemed like he didn't even want to be there. I was really surprised by how off Obama was, he barely called Mitt Romney out on many of his misleading and flat out false statements that Romney made. And Romney made plenty of them.

A. They also make more income per year than I do in my lifetime. Also, the top 1% makes 40% of the income, but only pays 30% of the taxes.

B. No one is saying that there should be no rich people, but their tax rate is too low. In the Clinton administration when the tax rate was higher, many more millionares were added than when the rate was lower.

C. Actually, most jobs are created by small buisinesses. Also, a CEO doesn't hire less people if they have a lower personal income. If you want to debate the corporate tax rate thats fine, but the individual tax rate has nothing to do with it.

@bold

which were...?

Not going to make a list of them, but the most noticable one was denying that he wanted a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. He wants a 20% across the board tax cut, which would cost 4.8 trillion over 10 years. He also said that taxes wont go up on anyone, and that his tax plan would be revenue neutral, but that is impossible. You cant cut taxes on someone, and not raise them on someone else, and keep it balanced.

Romney gets hit with this a lot, but I tend to side with Romney on this, even though he hasn't supplied specifics.  The problem is that Romney wants to lower rates at the same time as closing a lot of deductions and what not.  Right now, most people don't pay anything near the base rate, as they deduct and find loopholes in the tax code.  Romney's plan would reduce the rates, but also limit the amount of deductions people can make so that they are paying something closer to the actual rate they are supposed to.  

The 5 trillion dollar figure you have there is if he only reduced the rates and nothing else.  So right off the bat your statement is false and misleading.  It is possible, for example Romney the other day raised the idea of capping deductions at 17k so people couldn't write off more than that.  For somebody like Romney who deducts millions of dollars, that would result in a much larger tax burden while somebody like me (i'm a teacher) who doesn't even pay 17k in taxes wouldn't have any problems at all.  

I don't think that is a false statement at all by Romney, but I think if he wants to actually keep people from attacking him on it, he probably needs to give some more details.  

B) You mean when we were in the height of the real estate bubble that led to the GFC?

C)  Small buisnesses are taxed the same as wealthy individuals.  When you raise taxes on one, you raise taxes on both.

There really weren't many outright lies.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21696057/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps?source=most_viewed

He didn't say revenue nuetral he said it wouldn't increase the deficit.  That's two different things.

Romney most likely won this debate. Obama looked like he was pissed that his people didn't prepare the material for his responses very well. There are advisers who prepare each candidate for the debate and it was quite obvious Obama was not 100% prepared to answer all the questions with intelligent answers. Still, the debate is usually irrelevant to who wins the Presidency. Bush was terrible in all his debates and still won 2 terms. lol!!

People wonder how come most Presidents don't keep all their promises. It's really easy. They aren't really running the whole show. They are merely puppets to all the advisers and all of Congress. Every time Obama tried to pass a bill it got rejected in Congress. If Romney because President, all his promises with get blocked in Congress as well. He won't be able to get much passed either. He talks a good game, but he won't get much done unless there is bipartisan between Republicans and Democrats. Clinton was able to get several of his promises done because I was able to get some agreements from both sides. I don't see that ever happening with Mitt or Barrack, unless both sides come to some agreements.

So if it is not going to increase the deficit, that means that somehow cutting taxes will increase, or not change the amount of revenue. That is impossible. The only way it could be considered possible is if cutting taxes somehow resulted in a dramatic increase of jobs, which the Bush era showed doesnt work.