I can't believe anyone would think Obama is a great speaker/debater

Just by looking at how they presented themselves and how they responded and not so much as what they actually said Obama seemed very off his game and it showed.

 

This one I remeber : at one point on Dodd-Frank, Obama says something like if you want to unregulated wall street, Governor Romney is your candidate. But in fact, Romney was challenging him why designate 5 big banks as too big to fail, a very fair question. Obama never responded head on. Instead he reminded everybody about risky behaviors of the bank and how he installed oversight on them. That went on for about a minute and ended with that attack Romney. He never answered the question. That really threw me off.

 

Probably because Dodd Frank doesn't designate 5 big banks as too big to fail, or do anything remotely similar to that.

Why is it in your opinion "a very fair question"?

In my opinion, it's utterly nonsensical to anybody who has actually read the legislation. I guess I'd fault Obama for not saying it's nonsense, but not for dodging the nonsense q.

 

Reading this thread really makes me wonder what debate some of y'all saw. I agree that Obama didn't do as well as he should and Romney won but most of Obama's statements were substantial. It's true he didn't attack Romney when there were openings and he didn't respond to everything Romney brought up but he did address almost everything and was on substance for most of the debate.

Obama didn't do a great job but some of you, besides the wingnuts who always think this way, act like he was a blathering idiot out there (that will be Biden's job ).

Also the FACTS HAVE A WELL KNOWN LIBERAL BIAS!

 

Just wait. They are already having to cover for some of the stuff Romney said lol. He spoke a lot, but what did he really say? The best part though is that the numbers that they speak of that will offset everything makes no sense whatsoever mathematically. It seemed clear that Obama let him talk and will let it all come back to Romney to bite him like everything else he has said. I would be willing to vote for Obama just for the fact that it will give me a different Republican choice next election. How do people think this guy is looking out for anyone? He already got caught lying about covering preexisting conditions. Im sure that is one of many. Lets make the rich richer and just cover our tracks by hammering about creating jobs. You dont just create that many jobs overnight. Companies are in debt and hurting. If they cut the taxes and give them more money, then they can eventually catch up but doesnt mean they will hire anyone. Also, the programs he is cutting.....does that not lose jobs as well??

 

Last night, Mitt validated everything that liberals have said the last 4 years. Yes, we need regulations. Yes, we need Dodd-Frank. Yes, we need to fund education. For Mitt to have any chance this election, he must show that he is a man of integrity. The only way for him to do that is to become a progressive.

Republicans have a deep problem: they cannot be with honest with anyone and nor do they care. This should be fairly self-evident by now. For Mitt to carry any semblance of an honest conversation with the American people, he will have to disown his own base.

Yes, truth has a known liberal bias.

 

Today on the stump Obama made a similar comment that he didn't recognize the Mitt Romney that showed up on stage last night because he was talking 180 degrees different than what he had been for the last year.

 

Your question is about "too big to fail."

Let's go back in time. Why were we as American taxpayers required to bail out troubled banks? In any market system, any institution or entity that makes risky bets and has bet incorrectly should be allowed to fail.

But this was not the case and we as taxpayers had no choice. It was either save the banks despite their reckless behavior, or let them bear the brunt of the responsibility and live in a country with a failed financial system.

In other words, all our eggs were in one basket, and we had no choice but to bail out bad actors because they were "too big to fail".

 

Mitt is a chameleon. He hides in obscurity and changes color at will.

It's up to the American people if we want that as a President.

 

1) George W. is not a junior

2) He is a good speaker. When his speeches are written. Or a teleprompter is provided.

 

He should have met Romney head on. Not many people read let alone understand Dodd-Frank ( BTW, I read it too a year ago, but I focused more on the consumer provisions) My recollection tells me that the too big to fail notion is not without basis, but I can be wrong as you pointed out. More so, Obama should have met head on.
The question is whether Obama understands Dodd-Frank himself.

 

spoken like a conspiracy theory nut.

"Anyone who doesn't believe the U.S. faked the moon landing is brain dead."

 

Romney caught a lot more hell on "47%" than Obama did on "bitter clingers". And the LAT refuses to release the Khalidi tape.

 

As I said I read Dodd-Frank a year ago, I think the republicans are referring to the bailout provisions and the Systematically Important Finacial Institutions. Obama should have responded that these provisions are not only designed for SIFIs because under Dodd-Frank federal regulators can take over any bank they they wish if they decided that its failure could have a distablizing effect. Dodd-Frank designates SIFIs not for the purpose to bail them out but rather for the purpose of subjecting them to more strict oversights (but it's arguable whether some of the oversight provisions of Dodd-Frank are actually good).

 

You are a loathsome, disingenuous pile of steaming excrement. I have told you 1000 times, it's not a conspiracy. Journalists are liberal Obamabots. Some do conspire - see Journolist, but most don't need to hold a meeting because they already think alike.

 

Dodd Frank actually does the opposite of what Romney claims- rather than designating 5 banks as too big to fail ( a bald faced lie) it creates incentives to NOT become too big because it makes it easier for the govt to intervene before its too late once you hit a certain threshold.

You may willing to believe that Obama doesn't understand it (unlikely given his capacities) but given that Romney is actively lying about it to serve his Wall St deregulation gimp masters is hard to pitch as a win here in the reality based community.

 

Romney's being disingenuous on this point to the extreme. First of all, Basel III laps Dodd-Frank and the Basel Committee declared eight American banks to be global SIFIs. But anyone in finance who has an ounce of knowledge can name you off the top of their heads the banks America cannot let fail.

JPM, GS, WFC, MS, BOA, Citi. State Street and Bank of New York Mellon, meh.

It's not like you need Dodd-Frank to designate them as such, even if an international body has already done so. This is like blaming Sesame Street for teaching kids how to form the letters that form the word F C U K.

 

Like I said, it was clear to me that Romney had not much idea about Dodd-Frank. I was really disappointed that Obama didn't pin him right there. Rember Romney earlier jabbed him that he never heard of the tax break for relocating business overseas which Obama was pounding on. What is the president waiting for? I am disappointed b/c the man should be swinging on that sort of questions like a champ given he has been in the office for 4 years. That's eternalty for any leadership position. Instead, he was like scratching his heads responding with irrelevant stuff. That really made me wonder if he only knew how to challenge a weak opponent in Bush Jr and does he really know what he is doing?

 

Why didn't Obama say so!? Didn't Romney call him on the tax break thingy earlier?

 

Bush Jr? :grin: I don't WTF I was talking about.