the middle class has lost 4000.00 a year in income, gas and food price are out of reach for most families, is that the help your talking about?

We need JOBS, JOBS and more JOBS, we need a smaller government, it's choking this country. the only JOBS government can create are government JOBS, at a very high expense to the tax payer. We need a better business environment. Read this survey of 800 businesses.

Small Businesses and Manufacturers: Government a Barrier, Not a Help, to Economic Growth - National Association of Manufacturers - Manufacturing Association

Let's be clearer. Mr. Romney wants to one up President George W. Bush. More cash via imprudent tax cuts for those who don't need it, a larger military, slash education and Big Bird as examples, and continue policies to keep a cheap labor pool. This election is more of a crossroad for this country. Do we understand that a nation is citizens who not only work for their own prosperity but also those of others because it is in our own interest. It is not a matter of sharing wealth. It is recognizing almost all citizens contribute to the greatness of this country and should be paid enough to at least live a livable life.

Good article, Scot. You'll get used to telling it like it is, and eventually it won't feel uncomfortable at all.

The debate showed Mr. Romney's ability to destroy the Democrat fable that lowering tax rates equals lowering tax revenues.  For that to be true, the economy would have to be a static, non moving metric that never changes.  But as Romney articulately pointed out, lower rates creates MORE tax payers, and leads to larger aggregate tax collections from the wealthy.  That is the reason, by the way that 47% of the people pay no income taxes.  The Bush tax plan made it MORE progressive, and actually raised the amount of tax revenues collected from the wealthy.

It would have been great if Romney rebutted the idea that the tax increases of 1993 led to the strong economy of the late 1990s.  That would only be true if those tax increases caused the internet/y2K bubble, which even Al Gore does not seem to believe.

Mitt was great at pointing out how the oft repeated soude bites take on a level of believability.  But he skillfully reminded us all that false sound bites are not any more true, no matter how often they are repeated.  This debate was about substance over platitudes, and Mitt Romney won because his facts and logic were on target.

One comment Romney made hasn't seen much coverage in the press. In the context of their discussion of education, Romney said he favors eliminating the two federal programs now in existence (Title I and Special Education) and then give the money to parents so they can "choose" a charter school or private school. This is of course, nonsense. First of all, Title I is the money now being used for Race to the Top and without an organized national effort. One with substance, the United States will fall further and further behind the rest of the world. We're not going to make progress by passing a little money out to the parents of poor kids and telling them"good luck!" And with Special Education,I think someone with some gravitas needs to call Romney to the carpet every time he opens his golden pie-hole about reducing services for the most vulnerable among us (whether it be the elderly, the sick or the disabled).

I have said since the start of this campaign that this election is about dueling views regarding what America is really about.  I think Scot has hit some of it but it is far deeper than merely economics.  Mitt is not an isolated elected official who will at will impliment only that which he desires.  No he is at the moment the head of a Republican Party dominated by Southern leadership.  Dominated by a Southern leadership that desires to undo the progress that this nation has made over the last 152 years.  This party desires to restrict and control the rights of women in the areas of health and labor.  It desires to restrict and limit the ability of minorities to vote and engage in the activities of our government.  This is a party that's first reaction to foreign crisis is to beat upon the drums of war and then when the war is over restrict benefits and assistance to the returning veterans.

Today's Republican Party is in the thrall of the childishness of Ayn Rand, the mythology of the religious right and a revisionist history matched only by the Soviet Union in its hey day.  Living here in the South I hear if from local politicians all of the time, it is a return to states rights a righting of the wrongs brought about by the Civil War.  What we are seeing in Southern politicians is a joyous hope of in the end winning the old "glorious cause".

The press once in awhile hears and writes about the Aiken's or the West's, but the press doesn't hear the barroom talk, the luncheon talk, the local pol at the town meeting.  These people want a stripped powerless federal government.  Romney I could care less about.  He is what he was as Governor of Mass. a man seeking a title.  But this Republican Party is I truly believe the greatest threat to this nation in many, many years.  Simply because it is a legitimate party and it is making an argument to a people that believe it cares about the functioning of the federal government. This Republican Party, this southern Republican Party does not have the best interests of the federal government in its heart.  This party would have us be 50 nations under its "chosen" God quite divisable and quite controlled by their own monied interests.

With a Romney presidency and subsequent Supreme Court nominations we could see an end to most of our efforts to protect the environment, an end to all abortions (it is what it is folks) and a prohibition to using race as a factor in hiring or in college acceptance. Oh, if you like those ideas, you could also see Rick Santorum in a power position (maybe next to Michele Bachman). They're Back!!! I can't wait.

Mr. Obama says he will create an economically healthy middle class by hiring 100,000 new teachers. This is his "job" proposal? He also says the middle class deserves their "fair" share. Government spending, he says, will juice up the economy and give the middle class more money to spend. If you suck the community's income for public sector jobs from their taxes, aren't they the new employers? Is that his idea of the growth of new business? Romney's Proposed Cutting of beloved government programs like PBS will cost him the election? Obama's debate Information had gaps that would fill the Grand Canyon. No federal budget has been submitted since he stepped into his White House. His stock answer is to eliminate all those millionaires and billionaires except the ones contributing to his reelection campaign. Debate performance aside, the fact is he had no answer as to how the only growth America has had for four years has been in unemployment, food stamps and the astromonical Chinese funding of our national deficit.

The red jerseys are out in force doing enthusiastic jumping jacks this morning.  Seems a particularly invigorated cheerleader spouting platitudes has also given them his own brand of amnesia.  Mitt won't remember what he said in the first debate the next time you hear him.  He'll be too busy trying to figure out what he thinks needs to be said at that moment.  Sure, there are different visions for the world.  One leads towards towards emphasis on individual responsibility.  One leads towards an attention to community responsibility.  It is absolutely true that both visions of the world are important, and need to be integrated into the whole.  But that's a separate topic from whether anyone - either red jerseys or blue jerseys - can acccept Mitt as a key player in the conversation.  He does not belong anywhere close to any power.  The man is not trustworthy.  

Ah, Waytoo, the all important issue of the size of Obama's American flag lapel! How could everyone else have overlooked it? Pro-fox: Here, I think you overlook the fact that one of the weights on job creation has been the big loss of teachers (and cops &tc) at the local level. Begolf: Why do you say Roe won't be overturned? Replace one or two justices with more Alito-Scalia-Thomas types and it probably will be. Richmond: What was it the Old Gipper said? "There you go again ..."

Scot, you really need to get away from the tax policy analysis. I have shown other studies here that show it is possible. Net-net, as was shown in an interview lasst night between Erin Burnett and Stephanie Cutter (who is a joke). She admits:

Burnett: “Right. So you’re saying if you lower them by 20% you get a $5 trillion tab, right?”

Cutter: “It’s a $5 trillion tab.”

Burnett: “But then when you close deductions it’s not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.”

Cutter: “Well, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.”

Obama is also grossly lying about his tax plan and his "support" for the middle class. Obamacare has taxes (both direct and passed on) that will directly impact the MC. He has not been able to drive any job or wage (both lower) with his keynesian policies. Will they finally work now? How is he going to fund the teachers? Local gov's are already strapped, especially the inner city (see the recent Chicago debacle). So how does he pay for this? He uses accounting gimmicks to get to his numbers. 1m manufacturing jobs? How? See the baltic index and Fedex numbers recently? And Obama has not necessarily shown himself to be a big free trade guy b/c of his union ties. So where do all these products (annd demand) come from?

Jeff Sessions released a statement today with key parts here:

Tables S-1 and S-4 from the summer budget update show a $1.8 trillion tax increase. So for the President to promise 2.5 times as many spending cuts would require reductions of $4.5 trillion. But table S-4 shows outlays of $46 trillion—a spending request $1.4 trillion greater than what we are currently planning to spend. Overall, under the President’s plan, the federal budget will grow 58 percent larger—from $3.6 trillion today to $5.9 trillion in 2022. The gross federal debt, as shown in table S-14, will rise $11 trillion from last year’s debt total—to $25.4 trillion in 2022.

As for the President’s mysterious $4 trillion in deficit reduction, it’s nowhere to be found. The President’s net change in spending is a $1.4 trillion increase and his net change in taxes is a $1.8 trillion increase—leaving less than $400 billion in deficit reduction, one-tenth of what he pledges. As Glenn Kessler writes: “The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate… fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects.”

lastly, Obama has never produced a budget that has garnered 1 yea vote! Why is that. Best line- trickle down governement.

and today's job numbers are bogus. Jack Welch tweet: Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change number

I am tired of Obama never being incorrect or having done anything wrong. The arrogance is immense

I am also sick and tired of the racce baiting on the left. Blaming his performance on he did not want to be seen as a angry black man. Liberals use race (or gender) for everyting. Obama, the man, caused these economic conditions. Obama, the man, is hiding Libya from us. Obama, the man, support Ayers and Rev. Wright. Obama, the man, got his hat handed to him the other night becuase he is arrogant.

You can't put a single person to work by taxing rich people.  Economics doesn't work that way Democrats.   And if you didn't understand that before, you should understand it by now, after the last three years of selling that fantasy.

Facts, guys, facts. Evidence. You can do better.

Scott,

I believe you forgot to put the disclaimer, I'M Barack Obama and I approved this message! The president stated I'm here to talk about the future. So in other words, let's not talk about my abysmal record. Scott, why not tell everyone how his administration botched Fast & Furious, he had to use executive priviledge to protect Holder. How about his foreign policies failures, having his minions telling everyone the killing of Americans on 9/11 were because of a video and not an act of terrorism. Tell everyone how we are spending $3 billion a day in interest on the debt that he has increased by $5 trillion in 4 years. How he alternative energy policy is an abysmal failure, how middle income families have decreased their income by over 10% in the past 4 years, gas prices and food prices are at all time highs?

It isn't Obama's fault. You see he had total control of congress for two years and accomplished nothing!!! So that gives him 4 years of ZERO accomplishments, but to the Globe and MSNBC crowd, it is George Bush's fault and evil republican. Next you will be telling us Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian and she never used it for her advantage or by Harvard reporting her as a minority, they broke federal law by reporting things to the federal government which isn't true!

The tough guy from Chicago got his fanny whipped by Mitt and liberals don't want to admit what everyone else saw! Besides the disclaimer at the end, your forgot to start your story with Once upon a time....

Talk about ugly, partisan BS.  Interesting how GW's policies are killing us now and the reason the president appears so useless yet Clinton is solely responsible for for growth in the 90's.  Though he did little to foster the growth that happened.   Also even more sickening how you forget that Bush dealt with 9/11, 2 wars and a major financial collapse that was, at a bare minimum a 50/50 split between the parties and had little to do with Bush's administration.  Dems act like we werent at less than 5% unemployment before the Barney Frank housing plan crashed.  Just disturbing lies that Scot repeats. 

Every time Obama was asked a question he attacked MR. Everytim MR rebutted or answered a question he laid out his philosophy. Obama has nothing to highlight and Biden will get his clock cleaned and the foreign policy debatre does not offer much hope for O either. Libya, Russia. Syria, Syria and Turkey, Israel, releasing secrets (with another this week).

"HHK" said, " Liberals refuse to even acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is in any way related to Islam itself."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it hard to believe you made that statement.  Most "liberals" I know fully recognize the relationship they simply prefer to not generalize against the entire religion.  A position I agree with given how easy we in the west find it to dehumanize people and ideas we don't like. 

This idea that the government budget is overrun by entitlement programs is by the numbers a false assuption.  What drives the federal deficit is "Medicare" and the defense department.  What these dueling philosophies actually fracture over is the value of these two programs.  Romney seeks 2 trillion dollars in additional defense spending, unwanted by defense but lived by the defense industry.  Obama seeks to reduce the medical expeniditures while holding the line on defense.  Romney wants to end Medicare.  Neither of these positioins lights my fire as I'd rather see a major cut in defense and I will admit to a desire for a single payer program.  Not so much on philosophical grounds but on purely economic grounds. 

What I find most unnerving about many who support Romney is their failure to recognize what you get with Romney.  One does not elect him in isolation, you get the party.  And as I point out every chance I get this is a party ruled by an ideology so un-American as to be unrecognizable.  I am a proud yankee with do desire to embrace the values of the old south, yet this is the agenda being promulgated by the Republican Party.

What do you think 7.8% unemployment number is going to be bigger than a debate in terms of the election.

Guys, this discussion has gotten really vapid. Flag pins, Godlessness. You've got poor hyper-serious attaturk playing hall monitor on your silliness. C'mon, (most of) you can do better.

another difference:

According to the Washington Examiner, “a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation” and uncovered “thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations” to the Obama campaign. Many of those donations have allegedly come from overseas and may be in violation of federal election laws

this help the middle class:

t gasoline pump prices jumped as much as 30 cents a gallon yesterday.  That’s how much pump prices jumped between lunch and late afternoon here on the central coast;

Scot: I think you need more evidence too. I do like your outlining the dueling philosophies, but this is important only if there's evidence that either candidate means what he says and, if either philosophy has really been fairly tried. I'd be more likely to compare Romney's ideas to Reagan's than to Bush's expensive "compassionate conservatism". And I'd check out Obama's against the established European economies. Note that most new European governments (after the fall of the giant socialist model) have adopted flat tax rates.

"begolfing"  The point of my concern regarding the southern aspects of the Republican Party is that these are the people Mitt will answer too.  He is not the kind of politicians who will stand up the extremities of his party.  I have seen no evidence of Obama caving to his "far left" which I find as unsettling as the Republican "far right" in fact it is the "far right" that controls the levers of power for the Republican Party. 

It may well be merely a matter of perspective, but "Barbara" compare Mitt to Reagan, if that were true I might consider it.  For who did more for govt. employee's, welfare recipients than Ronald Reagan.  While RR played with the religious right he never took them seriously.  RR was a politician.  I can live  with a politician but Mitt's got no backbone for this stuff.  In fact when it comes to hypocrisy I don't know how the right supports him.  Romneycare?  Really?

oh no, it's over. (humor)

Boston College psychophysiologist Joseph Tecce has found that since 1980, the candidate who blinks the least during the televised debates has gone on to win the popular vote. In his preliminary analysis of last night’s debate, Tecce found that Obama lost in a landslide: he blinked an average of about 75 times a minute, compared to 55 times a minute for Mitt Romney.

Attaturk: I've always had the sense that Romney, like Reagan, really doesn't care that much about the social issues. Reagan's focus was the fall of the evil Empire, and Mitt's is the economy. I don't know myself how candidates of either party get past the extreme elements who control the primaries, except by creative pretending. Most social conservatives can still support him now because of the alternative. Also, I have no concern about Mitt's backbone.

SCot, did you watch the whole Obama tape in New Orleans? Find it funny that he actually voted against eliminating the Stafford Act during that time yet plays it up. Phony, like his accent.

I agree Scot Lehigh---when will we stop acting like running for office is like playing a sport. Most of the comments were not on substance but on the aggressiveness or lack thereof of the debaters.

Scot,  Please write a column about how the Right questions any good news...are they un-American or do they just hate America.  They have gone nuts all day today.

"system" When you look back I'll take the last word.  You stated, "You're giving me your interpretation of campaign rhetoric.  I'm giving you policy flip-flops "  Mr. Romney can't have policy flip-flops because he has nothing but campaign flip-flops.  He's not in office he has only one policy in effect that relates to the campaign.  Romneycare which as you know is Obamacare with that mandatory puchase of insurance.   You create an argument and then say hey you can only use policies that have been passed,  When your guy isn't even in office.  Sad.

Whatever you may think of the former Massachusetts governor’s politics, there should never have been any hesitation about Romney the man. This is a bright, self-made man, one whose public and private philanthropy, which puts most of us to shame, should be legendary. It is not. That’s because his good works weren’t done to burnish his political credentials and his decency discourages their exploitation toward that end. You don’t have to agree with Romney on everything to see that he is a mensch. He obviously loves the America that is — the land of opportunity that has rewarded his work ethic. Like most of us, he wants that America preserved, not “fundamentally transformed.”

t, for months, the Obama campaign has relentlessly portrayed Romney as an inveterate scoundrel: a dissolute shylock — maybe even a felonious one — who fleeced mom-and-pop stores, secreted his ill-gotten gains in offshore vaults, and, in his spare time, tortured his own pooch. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it” — it’s the Alinskyites following their dog-eared rule book.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329590/obama-unfiltered-andrew-c-mccarthy