It can be argued that the rich should be rewarded for practicing less thrift and investing and do more consumption, to get the economy moving.  An issue here though, is that things got to where they are by people saving, and investing.  Because of this, the entire system is geared towards having people invest, by making the tax rate for capital gains lower, and other things.  The whole saving and investing is how improvements are done, and you raise the standard of living for people.  Thing now I would say is that this has gone so well, the investments have resulted in productivity gains that have outstripped the areas to move workers into.  Demand for labor has a downward pressure, but also weird very high demands for specific sets of skills, which then causes shortages.

And all this ends up having a big vibe of centralized planning.  You end up artificially tipping the economy certain ways.  This is a problem.  What would be needed is to end up looking at what causes dysfunctions in the economy and malinvesting, malconsumption, and malproduction.  Then also have what is seen as needed to enable people to have a minimum standard to live, and have hope.  And get everything else out of the way, outside of trying to prevent negative outcomes that have really bad results.

It does help when your country has the world's manufacturing base, because most of the rest blew up, due to war.  It is interesting that doring the 1960s, Playboy magazine ran an article on how you could do away with personal income tax by shifting how youy taxed, including getting rid of tax exempt status for churches.

now that is a perfect example of "spin" if I ever saw it.

Somehow, attacking the presidents record is now a defensive move instead of an offensive move.  So, by your logic, if romney had been deffending his own policies he would have been on the offense?  

Romney most certainly did bring up several of theose issues. He mentioned the increase of those now living in poverty (1 in 6 Americans if you believe the stat) and he also mentioned the decrease in wages, increase of Americans on Food stamps by over 15 million Americans etc. His answer for those is fostering an economy that will allow jobs to be created so people aren't on food stamps and aren't stuck in poverty.

He also mentioned the Keystone pipeline and what he would do about it . While he didn't specifically mention fracking he most assuredly had that in mind when he talks about energy independence. Most likely he is for Fracking and the pipeline etc. as they are PROVEN sources of energy and for the foreseeable future are the way we will be powering our world. So he mentioned utilizing those to strengthen our economy. Or for the simple minded....Drill, Drill, Drill.

They both mentioned the middle class multiple times during the debate and I for one am sick of hearing about the middle class even if I fall into that category. I am looking to break aay from that class and become wealthy myself. This idea that people can ONLY be happy if they are middle class is nonsense and the whole argument ought to be strcken from the debates. While more money can be helpful in life it isn't necessary and even the poorest of Americans are the envy of the real impoverished human beings in other countries around the world.

They both talked about education in this country (as it was a specific topic) and Romney mentioned choice in education (I'm sure you view that as an attack on public education) and Obama repeated the Status Quo of "More teachers." Choice means competition in education and as a parent of three children one being Autistic I am all for it.

No they didn't discuss wealth inequality because its a stupid issue, there is always income inequality. It's a subjective issue as no one has the same perspective on what constitutes inequality. Is it they make 100 or 10000 or 100000000 dollars more than the next guy.

As for the ever expanding surveillance state, NDAA, police brutality, stop&frisk etc. there is only so much that can be covered and of all those those topics aren't the top issues of the day. As important as they are most Americans don't see them as the most pressing issues of the day.

So now its disrespectful to actually LOOK at the person who is speaking? He's was being polite and professional. He was giving Obama his attention by actively listening to the most powerful man in the world. So what if he was smiling. For F#*! sake's if he was doing what Obama did the whole time you'd all besaying how disrespectful he was and how he couldn't stand with Obama.

The man whooped the crap outta the Obama by being professional and polite while laying out facts, adressing every point Obama made and ENGAGED Obama and the people watching. Obama kept his head down, smiled and agreed with a lot of what Romney said and even said things like Romney is the candidate for you etc. Usually when people can't look at you they are knowingly intimidated and/or are lying.

I'm sorry but Obama looked like a peewee league ball player out there with a Major Leaguer. It wasn't even close.

The "real" Pres. obama today
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82033.html?hp=f1

Dumbest post ever.... If there was choice in the poll to say who lost I'd have voted for you.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

What is "real" about a canned speech in front of a group of supporters? "Real" was last night when debating on issues in front of the whole country against his opponent. If that is the "real" Obama then he is in trouble.

maybe we should elect president obama's speech writer?  He seems to do a better job than the president himself...

I agree, he usually is a good speaker, but he hardly ever speaks without a prepared speech.  He almost always has a teleprompter in front of him.  

Romney generally does too, but his speeches aren't very good, which is why I complimented Obama's...