2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

I agree on sealing tax loop holes, I disagree in the need to raise taxes on the rich just wildly so that we agree in.

My operative word certainly wasn't "wildly." But even a large increase would have a minimal economic effect.

Thing is, by throwing down "I won" being matter of fact or not, pretty much kills any debate on the other side in how to help and work with the President.

I'd argue that there was never a chance for bipartisanship in the first place. And if there was, I certainly don't think one comment by Obama killed it. That's ludicrous. Also, note that Republican leaders laughed about the comment; it was essentially a joke.

It is ignorant not to call it a betrayal, as noted there was a Gentlemen's Agreement on the deal, Obama backed out of it and went for the different deal, that in and of itself is a betrayal of the agreement that he had with Boehner, furthermore by backing out it killed any hope of getting a deal done.

And what proof do you have? I have provided proof that Boehner as leader of the party was close to a deal that included tax increases, he surely had done the political math to know how many Republicans he could whip into getting the deal done. Not to mention that Republicans had stood up in support for the Gang of Six deal that included tax increases. So I have to ask, where is your proof? Because EVERY thing points to the fact that Obama backing out of the grand bargain was the beginning of the end.

Yes, Obama may have called for an increase in tax revenue from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. But the net effect of the Gang of Six plan was still a tax reduction. The Republicans did not support the "increase," and that complicated matters. However, the Washington Post also notes in their timeline of the debt ceiling crisis:

That night, Obama personally explains the deal to House Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and asks them to support the deal with only $800 billion in new revenue.

Even after the increases were rejected, Obama was still attempting to convince the Democrats to adhere to the $800 billion plan. So yes, by all means blame Congressional Democrats for disagreeing, and blame Republicans from rejecting reasonable tax increases. But Obama clearly made an effort. Also, further information from the debt ceiling crisis.

Obama calls Boehner one last time. They discuss the ongoing negotiations on the Hill to raise debt ceiling and create deficit-reducing super committee. In that conversation, Obama asks Boehner to take the deal under discussion days earlier. Boehner says it's too late.

That sounds like Obama made a concerted effort to achieve a more reasonable deal to me.

As for proof that Republicans are against any and all tax increases, I point to the pledge by Grover Norquist, which they signed, which stipulates their opposition to tax increases. By no means is a pledge binding, but why are our lawmakers signing any agreement like this at all? Why would we not want to keep all options on the table? It's a political stunt, and nothing more.

As opposed to Obama's failed fiscal economic policies? Last time I checked we don't have a raging economy after 4 years of Obama.

Whether that is at all Obama's fault is an entirely different, complex question. The economy, notably, is growing currently, and both the stimulus and the bailout of the auto industry have had noticeable, beneficial effects. Furthermore, exactly how does that address Romney's support for an antiquated economic model, which has been proven wrong by the available data?

Understand, I don't blame any one political party or person for the failure of the American economy. I'd be naming too many people to count. I just happen to think that choosing Obama over Romney is the more fiscally responsible option.

As for Global Warming the science is still debated and there is a unhealthy amount of politics in it that needs to be extracted.

I sincerely enjoyed this debate. I think you've made several good points, and I mean it when I say that I actually thought this was fun. But I'm afraid that I need to opt out at this point. I'm perfectly fine with having a spirited discussion with someone whose political positions I disagree with. However, I find it seriously difficult to have that same conversation with someone that doesn't understand basic science.

More than 99.99% of scientists agree with current models of Global Warming. At this point, the vast amount of data indicates that it is as factual as gravity. The few scientists that disagree are only providing dissent that was bought and paid for by individuals and organizations who fear how policies brought on by climate change will affect their individual and collective wealth and investments. But that does not change the reality of the situation. It may be subject to political debate, but Global Warming is scientific reality. I'm not going to provide sources for information that has already been the subject of various systematic reviews and meta analyses. But I assure that if we do not act soon, our children and our grandchildren will pay an awful price.