Romney and Obama go on the attack in dueling economic speeches

Updated 4:40 p.m. ET

(CBS News) In the key battleground state of Ohio, President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney made competing remarks just minutes apart on the number issue of the campaign: The economy.

Mr. Obama, speaking in the Democratic stronghold of Cleveland, and Romney, speaking in heavily Republican Cincinnati, outlined their visions of the economy but also attempted to define their opponent as being harmful to the recovery.

At Cuyahoga Community College, the president said, "If they win the election, the agenda will be simple and straight forward." He said Romney and a Republican Congress would reduce the government "to a few basic functions," cut regulations and cut taxes, which he said would be harmful to the national deficit.

The president said Romney wants to take "us back" to economic polices of President George W. Bush's administration.

"We were told that huge tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans, would lead to faster job growth, we were told that fewer regulations, especially for big financial institutions and corporations, would bring about widespread prosperity. We were told that it was ok to put two wars on the nation's credit card, that tax cuts would create enough growth to pay for themselves. That's what were told."

"So how did this economic theory work out?" the president asked the crowd. "Mr. Romney is qualified to deliver on that plan."

"The debate in this election is about how we grow faster, and how we create more jobs, and how we pay down our debt," the president said.

Romney, meanwhile, noted the president's "eloquence," but said "talk is cheap."

"Action speaks very loud. And if you want to see the results of his economic policies, look around Ohio, look around the country, you'll see a lot of people are hurting," Romney said.

"So as you look at the president's record it is long on words and short on action that created jobs," Romney said.

Romney once again used the president's statement he made last week that the economy is "doing fine."

"If you think the President's right when he said the private sector is doing fine. well then he's the guy to vote for. But when he said that there was such an outpouring of response from the 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed that I think today he's not going to say it again," Romney said.

For his plan, Romney said he would increase trade, call out China for manipulating its currency and increase domestic oil, coal and gas production.

"I can guarantee you if I'm president on day one, we're going to get the approval for that pipeline from Canada, and if I have to build it myself to get it here, I'll get that oil into America," Romney said.

Romney recounted a discussion he had with Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who is also mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate.

"He said you know what I never heard my parents say why won't those people give me some of what they have. I never heard my parents say why won't the government give us some of what they had. Instead isn't it great to live in a country where hard work and education and risk taking you can achieve that yourself," Romney said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama touted what he called his "different vision for America," saying he would invest in education, research and development and renewable energy.

The president also reiterated his call to raise taxes on the "wealthiest Americans."

"If you really want to get the deficit under control, the tax code has to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more," he said, noting that Romney's plan includes cutting $5 trillion worth of taxes.

As both campaigns were so close to each other, the campaigns showed up at each other's events. Romney's bus, with the Romney campaign log, circled the site of the president's speech.

Both campaigns are likely to visit Ohio numerous times this campaign season, as it is a critical state to both campaign's election plans.

[LEAVA12]

Based on this analysis the top 10% has contributed a significant amount of income taxes to the government revenue. Without increasing the tax rate for the top 10%, income tax revenues would decrease, resulting in more government defect. The basic principle for a balanced budget and the gradual repayment of debt is that the government's revenue must be greater than its expenditures .

Indeed, the goal of raising the tax bracket for those with income over $250,000 is to raise government revenue, a critical agenda to boost the economy. Obama's tax increases for the wealthy is justified.

On "Face the Nation" Sunday, Pawlenty said "Romney has provided some specifics: "He called for a 20 percent reduction across the board on individual income tax rates and for small businesses. He's been specific about his tax cuts for corporate tax rates now in America, some of the highest in the world."

According the nonpartisan Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, the cumulative decrease in income tax rates will be reduced to 20% with Romney's income tax plan:

The current rate of 10% will be reduced to 8%, 15% will be reduced to 12%, 25% will be reduced to 20%, 28% will be reduced to 22.4%, 33% will be reduced to 26.4%, and 35% will be reduced to 28% . Is it a feasible solution to reducing the deficit? Is it questionable to protect the tax rate for millionaires? http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

As for "He's been specific about his tax cuts for corporate tax rates now in America, some of the highest in the world." said Pawlenty, Obama has proposed reducing the cooperate tax rate to 25% and Romney's proposal is just 20%.

As for Romney's stance on the Keystone XL pipeline - one of his priorities "I can guarantee you if I'm president on day one, we're going to get the approval for that pipeline from Canada, and if I have to build it myself to get it here, I'll get that oil into America," Romney said. Romney has criticized Obama as using "cheap talk" and so Romney himself should answer these critical concerns so no one can accuse him of using "cheap talk".

1) What is the difference between crude oil from Canada and standard crude oil?

2) How much does it cost to refine such dirty crude oil from Canada?

3) How much does it cost to build, maintenance, and secure the pipeline from sabotage, mother nature destruction....

4) How many jobs would be created due to construction of the pipeline?

5) What is the environmental impact and is there any health risk for Americans?

6) How much will it cost tax payers to clean up potential environmental disasters and pay for health aliments caused by the pipeline.

7) The final cost-benefit analysis.

[LEAVA12]

Did Romney consider the fact the Obama Administration reduced the 2011 budget when he said: "The only solution to taming an out-of-control spending government is to cut spending. And my policies reduce the rate of spending, bring government expenses from 25 percent, federal expenses, from 25 percent of the economy down to 20 percent and ignite growth of our economy,"? Did Romney simply restate what Obama has already been doing: cutting spending to the bone from 2011 to 2012? The following diagram may give some clues:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12066975-giving-new-meaning-to-reckless-spending

Did Romney know anything about the main sources of government revenues when he said: "I'm not looking for a tax cut for the very wealthiest, I'm looking to bring tax rates down for everyone, and also to make sure that we stimulate growth by doing so and jobs. For me this is all about creating good jobs." and "I'm looking to keep the burden paid by the wealthiest as the same share that it is today,"? It sounds good to voters, especially wealthy ones;however, after a fact-check, we will see it is too good to be true.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or poor people. The bottom 20 percent paid no taxes and the government had to pay to them, the next bracket from 21% to 40% ($16,961 to $33,870) paid only 2.8% of the total government income tax revenue, the next bracket from 41% to 60% ($33,871 to $59,154) paid only 9.9%, the next tax bracket from 61% to 80% ($59,155 to $103,428) paid a modest 18.7%, finally the top 20 percent of tax payers contributed a whopping 68% to the total revenues.

[raptor-022]

Yankee_Doodle June 14, 2012 8:20 PM EDT
"Romney's economic policies are very simple, allow the free enterprise system...to take its course once again".




Simplistic political rhetoric is all mitt romney has, and apparently has convinced you romney supporters without any details of any sort.

We've seen record profits by corporate America the past 2 years while they are enjoying little or no taxes, and you and romney want us to believe that our current business climate is not good for them and there is a magic wand involved to make their profits even higher?


Can anyone answer my questions with specifics and WITHOUT the usual republican talking points and political rhetoric?

[raptor-022]

Here's my question from last night with only republican talking points:

raptor-022 June 14, 2012 9:01 PM EDT
"While mitt romney says 'talk is cheap,' what exactly is he proposing to create jobs that is any different than george w. bush"?



Dan1711 June 14, 2012 9:15 PM EDT
"The Government does not 'grow' the economy. The private sector does. Romney wants to get the Government out of the way".




Can anyone answer my question, since dan obviously could not?

[raptor-022]

I'm going to ask this question once more, since nobody could answer it last evening, and it's very important and should be easy.

All I saw from mitt romney was attacks on the president's economic plans -- nothing new from him to increase economic growth or create jobs.

What exactly is mitt romney proposing to grow our economy and create jobs that is any different than what bush was doing for his 8 years?

Come on.....any romney supporter actually know?

[datadon1]

If you look up what the happened after the Bush tax cuts you will see that employment and tax revenues went up and the deficit was was coming down after

[raptor-022]

You're so full of it with the usual talking points, and still unwilling to look at the REAL FACTS that revenue plummeted after 2001 and has fallen to its lowest levels in 70 years. Factually, the bush tax cuts have been the largest driver of our deficits!

[sjc_1]

When you have multiple tax cuts AND wars, you are going to have huge deficits. Bush covered this up with several methods, but the truth is there for everyone to see.

[HemiHead66]

Just what we need, a pipeline that uses our refining capacity to export gas overseas, raising our gas prices here at home. And in case Romney didn't know it, oil rigs hit a 25 year high about 2 weeks ago, so where's the $2 buck gas and 4% unemployment? And I won't even get into Romney's BS about trade, which will benefit corporate slobs who are sitting on trillions. As far as labeling China a currency manipulator, that's the biggest joke of all, it does nothing. And Romney and the GOP already folded on the Dem's legislation to go after China for crooked trade. As a matter of fact, so did Obama. You aren't going to find many politicians that are willing to go after China, because going after China equals going after U.S. corporations doing business over there. They would take a direct hit to profits. So don't bother listening to Romney or Obama's BS on China.

[raptor-022]

Yes, the Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster for America, and only a good investment for the oil companies and some politicians that have been pushing it like speaker boehner, who is heavily invested in it. It will only provide tax-free exports for the oil companies and no revenue for the U.S. -- but will provide risks of leaks and spills.

[sjc_1]

If the upper half of XL goes in, we will hear about leaks on a regular basis. They will say they are doing everything they and imply this is the price you pay for filling your gas tank, while none of the oil stays here anyway. We will merely be a transit route for tar sands from Canada to Houston to the rest of the world.

[samXXkiley]

coucou,
uncertainty reigns in the camp of the two men,
to this day, neither of them is advantaged, the voter is undecided before the contradictory statements of both candidates, if Mitt Romney remains faithful to his convictions on certain social issues,
President Obama is ready to compromise, just for electoral reasons and not out of conviction. which is not well.
"au revoir"

[marychgo]

Mitt wants to double down on the failed policies of the Bush administration; THAT will make things better (haha!). And does he really know so little about the oil industry that he thinks the Keystone XL pipeline is going to get that (extremely dirty) Canadian gas "into the U.S."? Everyone who's even looked at the subject knows that the reason Canada wants to ship its gas to Texas is so that it can sell that gas on the global market. How dumb can you get?

[sjc_1]

Mitt knows an issue when he see one, Rush has already pounded the issues and they know which ones are popular. With Romney, the truth does not matter, popular opinion and which way the wind is blowing is more important. Mitt is a human wind sock.

[nearl451]

The visions are laid out well. I doubt the ability for either to achieve those visions in light of probable continued gridlock.

AND I still haven't heard either talk about specific plans once Europ tanks and we are in the double dip.....but I expect to as this happens before Nov. 2012.

[raptor-022]

nearl451 June 14, 2012 11:57 PM EDT
"AND I still haven't heard either talk about specific plans once Europ tanks and we are in the double dip".




Actually, I have yet to get any SPECIFIC economic plans at all from mitt romney or his supporters -- except the usual republican talking points of "free enterprise" and "less regulation".

That's exactly what destroyed our economy under bush, and it seems as if mitt romney is proposing more of the same economic policies as the republicans under bush.

Anyone?...........specifics please.....

[sjc_1]

Heaven forbid Romney ever gets anywhere near the White House, but in that case he would say that what we need is more deregulation, more tax breaks and privatization. Those will be the one size fits all "solutions" no matter what.