On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
Do you even read the things you post? From your link
Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan’s targets.
congrats, you can cherrypick one paragraph out of a deeply involved plan. Here's what I cherrypicked.
Governor Romney would permanently extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts now scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences, but has supplied no information on which preferences would be reduced. Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). The plan would also eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household) and repeal the federal estate tax, while continuing the gift tax with a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.
sorry if that level of detail isn't clear enough for you based on the fact Romney hasn't specified how he would increase the tax base calculation. I'm sure you are equally critical of Obama's tax policy, so I suppose I'll have to forgive you.
Yes, you are right. I am 'cherry picking' when I point out to the paragraph that says "We have no idea if this plan works because Romney doesnt provide the details for it"
The section you quote just says that (a) it will extend the Bush tax cuts that took the 200 billion surplus Clinton left the Bush administration with and turned it into a 400 billion deficit and (b) cut taxes further.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
Obama's plan was the budget set forth by the white house every year
I don't think you understand what a president does setting a proposed budget has been law for such a long time, used to have more sway before nixon fucked that up.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates.
This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama.
Yes it is. I had to go through the thing.
Sorry, but there is nothing so misleading in Obama's tax policy as what Romney was doing with these deductions.
People think tax deductions are for the rich, but a lot of them are meant to help the middle class.
This lady, in ASKING Romney about his tax plan, gave more specifics and substance than Romney did in his ANSWER.
Romney was going to cut taxes across the board, but eliminate deductions -- which was his BS way of claiming he wasn't cutting taxes for the wealthiest, even though he was. It's completely misleading, smarmy, and dishonest.
You might say Romney's plan is "simpler". That's true, in a sadistic way. It's in that "simplicity" of eliminating tax deductions for things like college tuition, that he was straight-faced lying to America.
And then there is the Estate Tax. Eliminate it, and sure, things are "simpler". But it's also a horrible, horrible idea that billionaire-inheritances shouldn't pay taxes on that inheritance.
He didn't mention the Estate Tax once in the debates, even though it's one of the more costly parts of his tax plan that applies only to the wealthiest in this country. Didn't. Mention. It. Once.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread). It's been debated extensively, and the report gives its conclusions, plainly, at the start.
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. His plan even eliminates the Estate Tax, and he had the gall to say it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy.
One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
You need to rewatch that 2nd debate, and realize what a shameless, audacious liar Romney was.
I'm sorry, I've googled "policy report" and "romney policy report" and I have no idea where you're getting this information. I was merely responding to your assertion that Romney didn't clearly outline his tax policy. I assumed that the tax policy center would be a legitimate source, but apparently I underestimated the quality of information you expected. I really don't know what kind of source I can post to show you Romney did indeed have a clearly outlined tax policy.
By policy report, he is referring to the TPC link you provided.
well if he was referring to the link I provided when he said "policy report" he obviously didn't look at the link I provided. The link I provided outlined Romney's policies on tax cuts, capital gains taxes and the current tax bracket. It didn't say anything about deductions or the proposed amount of revenue it would save.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
Do you even read the things you post? From your link
Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden. TPC has analyzed instead the effects of the specified proposals in the Romney plan. These estimates provide a guide as to how much the base broadening would need to raise taxes in different income groups to achieve the plan’s targets.
congrats, you can cherrypick one paragraph out of a deeply involved plan. Here's what I cherrypicked.
Governor Romney would permanently extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts now scheduled to expire in 2013, repeal the AMT and certain tax provisions in the 2010 health reform legislation, and cut individual income tax rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also expand the tax base by cutting back tax preferences, but has supplied no information on which preferences would be reduced. Tax provisions in the 2009 stimulus act and subsequently extended through 2012 would expire. These include the American Opportunity tax credit for higher education, the expanded refundability of the child credit, and the expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). The plan would also eliminate tax on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for married couples filing jointly with income under $200,000 ($100,000 for single filers and $150,000 for heads of household) and repeal the federal estate tax, while continuing the gift tax with a maximum tax rate of 35 percent.
sorry if that level of detail isn't clear enough for you based on the fact Romney hasn't specified how he would increase the tax base calculation. I'm sure you are equally critical of Obama's tax policy, so I suppose I'll have to forgive you.
Yes, you are right. I am 'cherry picking' when I point out to the paragraph that says "We have no idea if this plan works because Romney doesnt provide the details for it"
The section you quote just says that (a) it will extend the Bush tax cuts that took the 200 billion surplus Clinton left the Bush administration with and turned it into a 400 billion deficit and (b) cut taxes further.
they never said "we have no idea if this plan works" they said "we don't know how Romney plans on increasing the tax base." If you don't understand the difference between these two statements then I'm done with this shit. Luckily you seem to be an expert in taxes so I'm not going to bother you any more with my drivel. carry on.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread). It's been debated extensively, and the report gives its conclusions, plainly, at the start.
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. His plan even eliminates the Estate Tax, and he had the gall to say it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy.
One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
You need to rewatch that 2nd debate, and realize what a shameless, audacious liar Romney was.
I'm sorry, I've googled "policy report" and "romney policy report" and I have no idea where you're getting this information. I was merely responding to your assertion that Romney didn't clearly outline his tax policy. I assumed that the tax policy center would be a legitimate source, but apparently I underestimated the quality of information you expected. I really don't know what kind of source I can post to show you Romney did indeed have a clearly outlined tax policy.
By policy report, he is referring to the TPC link you provided.
well if he was referring to the link I provided when he said "policy report" he obviously didn't look at the link I provided. The link I provided outlined Romney's policies on tax cuts, capital gains taxes and the current tax bracket. It didn't say anything about deductions or the proposed amount of revenue it would save.
Because we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences, the TPC analysis does not include those proposals.1
That is in the first paragraph of the TPC report. The fact that the report doesn't say anything about the deductions is because Romney REFUSED to give specifics on the matter. His answer in one of the debates on the matter was, literally, "pick a number".
That report has been discussed extensively in this thread. The report condemns Romney's plan for being "too optimistic", which is a nice way of saying "BS".
But whether you agree with Romney's plan or not, the point I was making that has yet to be refuted, is that Romney, in the debates, tried to completely misrepresent everything about his tax plan. He didn't mention anything about the deductions, often used by middle-class families, didn't mention the estate tax. Asked for specifics, all Romney said was, "Of course it balances, after all, I'm a businessman."
And a businessman he can stay, away from the responsibility of governance, thank Christ.
On November 09 2012 13:58 xNSwarm wrote: Where can I read an in-depth overview of the political parties from an unbiased source? (unbiased as possible)
Would wiki be the best bet? So many distributors of information like to lean the points toward their own interests.
By unbiased I don't want something that one would necessarily think is logically correct because it aligns with their party's interests, but something that places both parties in equal light without putting down certain issues.
Such a thing is not possible, because neither party has what you would think of as a real, firm ideology. The two party system is really more of a 6-7 party system, except that clusters of parties allied together to form super-parties.
Fiscal conservatives laid down with social conservatives out of pragmatism: social conservatives could get them elected. Neocons joined up with them later, and they work somewhat well together because their ideologies don't stomp on each other too much.
Neocons are concerned with the US projecting force; they believe in "American exceptionalism" and want to push it on the world. Fis-cons and so-cons don't care much about foreign policy, so they'll vote the neocons' way just to keep them happy. Fis-cons are interested in lower taxes, "smaller" government, and so forth. Neocons don't care as long as they get their force projection and dominance, and so-cons are willing to ignore all of this talk of money to keep their allies. So-cons are all about using the power of government to push forward with a conservative social agenda; they want "traditional American values" (aka: Straight, White, Male, Angelo-Saxon, Protestant), and they want everyone to have it. Neocons are willing to dress this up in "patriotism" because it synergises well with what they need, and fis-cons will hold their noses and vote along with their allies to keep them voting their way.
So Republicans don't have a single ideology; they're an amalgam of stuff. Something similar could be said for the Democrats (fiscal liberals, social liberals, and people who would be in the green party if that were a viable option). Therefore, it's hard to talk about what their ideology is regardless of bias way. They have a lot of ideologies.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
Obama's plan was the budget set forth by the white house every year
I don't think you understand what a president does setting a proposed budget has been law for such a long time, used to have more sway before nixon fucked that up.
On November 09 2012 14:54 Kaitlin wrote: Does anybody in here think the Republicans are going to give in on tax increases ? I don't. Fiscal cliff here we come.
Unsure. It only needs to be be 40-50 of them, if the Democrats fall in line. I'd think Democrats in the House would be more inclined to support a somewhat unfavorable deal, as it is their president (and therefore their party) that will get most of the credit if the fiscal cliff is avoided but done so in a way that also helps our long term budget issues.
Doesn't the fiscal cliff (sequester) also contain tax increases? If the proposal increases taxes by a similar or even lower level, it would be illogical to go over the cliff in order to oppose that.
Also, the fiscal cliff contains military spending cuts. Republicans may be willing to trade slightly higher taxes for slightly more defense spending. In my opinion, willingness to waive some of the automatic defense cuts will be a powerful bargaining chip for the Democrats.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates.
This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama.
Yes it is. I had to go through the thing.
Sorry, but there is nothing so misleading in Obama's tax policy as what Romney was doing with these deductions.
People think tax deductions are for the rich, but a lot of them are meant to help the middle class.
This lady, in ASKING Romney about his tax plan, gave more specifics and substance than Romney did in his ANSWER.
Romney was going to cut taxes across the board, but eliminate deductions -- which was his BS way of claiming he wasn't cutting taxes for the wealthiest, even though he was. It's completely misleading, smarmy, and dishonest.
You might say Romney's plan is "simpler". That's true, in a sadistic way. It's in that "simplicity" of eliminating tax deductions for things like college tuition, that he was straight-faced lying to America.
And then there is the Estate Tax. Eliminate it, and sure, things are "simpler". But it's also a horrible, horrible idea that billionaire-inheritances shouldn't pay taxes on that inheritance.
He didn't mention the Estate Tax once in the debates, even though it's one of the more costly parts of his tax plan that applies only to the wealthiest in this country. Didn't. Mention. It. Once.
So simple, yet so dishonest.
Which talking point site gave you that one? That Obama's tax policy wasn't misleading? Did you even read it? It has the same problems that Romney's does when you actually take out a pen and paper and do the math. "Raising taxes on the rich" does not solve the deficit. It's not even close. He wants to "eliminate loopholes" to balance it. Yet, as CNN pointed out, the named "loopholes" are not even close to enough. You can say whatever you want, but Romney at least admitted he probably couldn't do what he wanted to do.
Romney was aiming for something like a 450b tax rate cut per year, balanced out by closing loopholes. But he said he was going to tie that to the negative of the loophole savings. His plan wasn't going to happen as written, because as you pointed out, he would not find enough loopholes. But he was pretty honest about this.
Obama's plan had the same problem Romney's proposal had. At least Romney had the balls to acknowledge his likely wouldn't work as written.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates.
This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama.
Yes it is. I had to go through the thing.
Sorry, but there is nothing so misleading in Obama's tax policy as what Romney was doing with these deductions.
People think tax deductions are for the rich, but a lot of them are meant to help the middle class.
This lady, in ASKING Romney about his tax plan, gave more specifics and substance than Romney did in his ANSWER.
Romney was going to cut taxes across the board, but eliminate deductions -- which was his BS way of claiming he wasn't cutting taxes for the wealthiest, even though he was. It's completely misleading, smarmy, and dishonest.
You might say Romney's plan is "simpler". That's true, in a sadistic way. It's in that "simplicity" of eliminating tax deductions for things like college tuition, that he was straight-faced lying to America.
And then there is the Estate Tax. Eliminate it, and sure, things are "simpler". But it's also a horrible, horrible idea that billionaire-inheritances shouldn't pay taxes on that inheritance.
He didn't mention the Estate Tax once in the debates, even though it's one of the more costly parts of his tax plan that applies only to the wealthiest in this country. Didn't. Mention. It. Once.
So simple, yet so dishonest.
Which talking point site gave you that one? That Obama's tax policy wasn't misleading? Did you even read it? It has the same problems that Romney's does when you actually take out a pen and paper and do the math. "Raising taxes on the rich" does not solve the deficit. It's not even close. He wants to "eliminate loopholes" to balance it. Yet, as CNN pointed out, the named "loopholes" are not even close to enough. You can say whatever you want, but Romney at least admitted he probably couldn't do what he wanted to do.
Romney was aiming for something like a 450b tax rate cut per year, balanced out by closing loopholes. But he said he was going to tie that to the negative of the loophole savings. His plan wasn't going to happen as written, because as you pointed out, he would not find enough loopholes. But he was pretty honest about this.
Obama's plan had the same problem Romney's proposal had. At least Romney had the balls to acknowledge his likely wouldn't work as written.
Which "talking-point site" do I go to?
I argued about this during the debate itself, if you cared to look. You've continually responded to me in this thread by trying to characterize me, personally.
I think that's all that needs to be said then. Romney was pretty honest? Have fun on whatever alien planet you're living on.
You don't even respond to the points I made. For example, you don't mention the Estate Tax.
Republicans don't mention the Estate Tax, either, despite quietly advocating its elimination -- how is not-taxing billionaire-inheritances going to bring balance to our budgets?
Or am I engaging in class-warfare by actually mentioning a policy Romney purported but REFUSED to talk about? Ah, yes, that must be the next response I get.
So you're going to talk about loopholes instead --- because that's the only problem with our budget. We can afford to give the wealthiest whatever tax policies they please as long as we close those pesky looholes! The GOP just puts things like the Estate Tax elimination in their tax plans, and when asked about it, you get answers about nameless tax deductions and loopholes.
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates.
This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama.
Yes it is. I had to go through the thing.
Sorry, but there is nothing so misleading in Obama's tax policy as what Romney was doing with these deductions.
People think tax deductions are for the rich, but a lot of them are meant to help the middle class.
This lady, in ASKING Romney about his tax plan, gave more specifics and substance than Romney did in his ANSWER.
Romney was going to cut taxes across the board, but eliminate deductions -- which was his BS way of claiming he wasn't cutting taxes for the wealthiest, even though he was. It's completely misleading, smarmy, and dishonest.
You might say Romney's plan is "simpler". That's true, in a sadistic way. It's in that "simplicity" of eliminating tax deductions for things like college tuition, that he was straight-faced lying to America.
And then there is the Estate Tax. Eliminate it, and sure, things are "simpler". But it's also a horrible, horrible idea that billionaire-inheritances shouldn't pay taxes on that inheritance.
He didn't mention the Estate Tax once in the debates, even though it's one of the more costly parts of his tax plan that applies only to the wealthiest in this country. Didn't. Mention. It. Once.
So simple, yet so dishonest.
Which talking point site gave you that one? That Obama's tax policy wasn't misleading? Did you even read it? It has the same problems that Romney's does when you actually take out a pen and paper and do the math. "Raising taxes on the rich" does not solve the deficit. It's not even close. He wants to "eliminate loopholes" to balance it. Yet, as CNN pointed out, the named "loopholes" are not even close to enough. You can say whatever you want, but Romney at least admitted he probably couldn't do what he wanted to do.
Romney was aiming for something like a 450b tax rate cut per year, balanced out by closing loopholes. But he said he was going to tie that to the negative of the loophole savings. His plan wasn't going to happen as written, because as you pointed out, he would not find enough loopholes. But he was pretty honest about this.
Obama's plan had the same problem Romney's proposal had. At least Romney had the balls to acknowledge his likely wouldn't work as written.
Which "talking-point site" do I go to?
I argued about this during the debate itself, if you cared to look. You've continually responded to me in this thread by trying to characterize me, personally.
I think that's all that needs to be said then. Romney was pretty honest? Have fun on whatever alien planet you're living on.
And your post ignores the explanation that Romney gave during the second debate. Your partisanship is super-annoying.
On November 09 2012 14:54 Kaitlin wrote: Does anybody in here think the Republicans are going to give in on tax increases ? I don't. Fiscal cliff here we come.
considering the democrats control the house and the senate I find this unlikely. Furthermore, considering the massive drop in the market based on the fact Obama was elected, I think you're blaming the wrong gang.
Can anyone explain the significance of this fiscal cliff to me? From what I know, it's a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, which....well, would kinda seem to be needed, what with the whole deficit thing, ne?
On November 09 2012 14:04 Leporello wrote: I really think Republicans need to stop making excuses for this.
Your candidate couldn't answer simple policy questions with consistent, honest answers. His tax policy was "whatever the audience wants to hear today!" That's why he lost. It isn't any bit more complicated or convoluted than that.
Romney had a clearly outline tax policy, which most liberals refused to acknowledge so they could rely on arguments like "Romney doesn't clearly outline his policy." such an argument had some effect to be sure, but now that the election is over, maybe liberals like yourself will be willing to actually do a minimum amount of research.
No. Read the policy report (I posted that same report hundreds of pages ago in this thread).
A) His tax plan mentions numerous deductions without clarifying what they are.
B) His tax plan made a gross assumption that it would spur so much monumental economic growth that it would make up for $5 trillion dollar in immediately-lost revenue.
But more importanly C) In the debates with Obama, Romney completely and utterly lied about his tax policy. He said he wasn't cutting taxes for the top-earners, which was a flat-out lie that contradicted his own website and everything he had said in the primary election. One lady in the 2nd debate asked Romney directly, "What deductions are you eliminating in your tax policy?" Romney didn't answer her question at all, completely dodged it.
His tax policy was convoluted and simply dishonest in its assumptions, and then, when forced to sell it to a non-Republican audience, he completely misrepresented it to such a degree that people didn't even know whether to trust his previous tax policy was still his current policy, or whether he decided to invent a new one overnight.
Obama's plan is just as vague. It's a pointless argument.
No, Obama's plan isn't as vague, and more to the point I was actually making (always a challenge with you), Obama didn't misrepresent and obfuscate in the debates.
This is why Romney didn't deserve any of your votes, no matter how much you might hate Obama.
Yes it is. I had to go through the thing.
Sorry, but there is nothing so misleading in Obama's tax policy as what Romney was doing with these deductions.
People think tax deductions are for the rich, but a lot of them are meant to help the middle class.
This lady, in ASKING Romney about his tax plan, gave more specifics and substance than Romney did in his ANSWER.
Romney was going to cut taxes across the board, but eliminate deductions -- which was his BS way of claiming he wasn't cutting taxes for the wealthiest, even though he was. It's completely misleading, smarmy, and dishonest.
You might say Romney's plan is "simpler". That's true, in a sadistic way. It's in that "simplicity" of eliminating tax deductions for things like college tuition, that he was straight-faced lying to America.
And then there is the Estate Tax. Eliminate it, and sure, things are "simpler". But it's also a horrible, horrible idea that billionaire-inheritances shouldn't pay taxes on that inheritance.
He didn't mention the Estate Tax once in the debates, even though it's one of the more costly parts of his tax plan that applies only to the wealthiest in this country. Didn't. Mention. It. Once.
So simple, yet so dishonest.
Which talking point site gave you that one? That Obama's tax policy wasn't misleading? Did you even read it? It has the same problems that Romney's does when you actually take out a pen and paper and do the math. "Raising taxes on the rich" does not solve the deficit. It's not even close. He wants to "eliminate loopholes" to balance it. Yet, as CNN pointed out, the named "loopholes" are not even close to enough. You can say whatever you want, but Romney at least admitted he probably couldn't do what he wanted to do.
Romney was aiming for something like a 450b tax rate cut per year, balanced out by closing loopholes. But he said he was going to tie that to the negative of the loophole savings. His plan wasn't going to happen as written, because as you pointed out, he would not find enough loopholes. But he was pretty honest about this.
Obama's plan had the same problem Romney's proposal had. At least Romney had the balls to acknowledge his likely wouldn't work as written.
Which "talking-point site" do I go to?
I argued about this during the debate itself, if you cared to look. You've continually responded to me in this thread by trying to characterize me, personally.
I think that's all that needs to be said then. Romney was pretty honest? Have fun on whatever alien planet you're living on.
And your post ignores the explanation that Romney gave during the second debate. Your partisanship is super-annoying.
No, I directly criticized Romney's 2nd debate answer, repeatedly. His explanation I, myself, posted, for the thread to enjoy, because it is a completely congenial, meaningless, nameless, empty, BS answer.
And that is why he lost this election. Because like you, he won't respond to things directly. He was a walking political cartoon. And I am partisan. I can admit that. I've heard Romney and George W. Bush enough to know that I will have a hard time trusting anyone who would align themselves with people like that. You sure aren't helping.
On November 09 2012 15:24 Sanctimonius wrote: Can anyone explain the significance of this fiscal cliff to me? From what I know, it's a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, which....well, would kinda seem to be needed, what with the whole deficit thing, ne?
Yes but, at least if you believe in Keynesian economics, cutting the deficit like that will also cause a huge drop in GDP.
So we'll have a much smaller deficit, but at the cost of possibly going back into recession.
On November 09 2012 15:24 Sanctimonius wrote: Can anyone explain the significance of this fiscal cliff to me? From what I know, it's a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, which....well, would kinda seem to be needed, what with the whole deficit thing, ne?
Yes but, at least if you believe in Keynesian economics, cutting the deficit like that will also cause a huge drop in GDP.
But what the other options, besides cutting spending or raising taxes (or letting BS tax breaks expire...)?
On November 09 2012 14:54 Kaitlin wrote: Does anybody in here think the Republicans are going to give in on tax increases ? I don't. Fiscal cliff here we come.
considering the democrats control the house and the senate I find this unlikely. Furthermore, considering the massive drop in the market based on the fact Obama was elected, I think you're blaming the wrong gang.
Democrats control the House? What? Check your facts, because they are wrong.
Obama is ready to sign a bill that would keep the tax rates for 99% percent of American at the rates they are today. The Republicans say they won't continue the rates for the 99% unless the top 1% get the same lower rates too.
They are literally holding the 99% hostage to the 1%.
Obama blinked before regarding the issue, and kicked the can down the road past the election. I don't think he will blink this time, Obama will have a bill signed from Senate to keep the current tax rates for 99% of Americans and he'll send it to the House, and the Republicans will reject it.
And we'll hit the fiscal cliff and taxes will go up for everyone, even as Republicans say they refuse to ever consider a tax increase. Or they will blink.
And if you truly believe that Obama is the reason that taxes will have gone up, then you're clueless, because when Democrats sat down with Republicans to solve the deficit crisis they and told them that taxes on the rich needed to go up. Republicans responded with "no, just cut entitlement programs" and Democrats said "sure, we'll cut some entitlements even though we don't want to if you agree raise taxes on the rich" and Republicans responded "nope, there will be no taxes increases, just entitlement cuts" and Democrats said, "then we can't work together, you're not willing to compromise."
Republicans literally don't know how to compromise on this issue. They all signed that stupid pledge to never raise taxes no matter what, and they want it to be their way or the highway. So it is going to the highway.
We'll just have to vote more of them out next cycle.
On November 09 2012 15:24 Sanctimonius wrote: Can anyone explain the significance of this fiscal cliff to me? From what I know, it's a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, which....well, would kinda seem to be needed, what with the whole deficit thing, ne?
In August 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. This law provided for a Joint Select Committee (the "Supercommittee") to produce bipartisan legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. If the committee failed to do so, another part of the Budget Control Act directs automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations"), split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning January 2, 2013, should the Supercommittee fail to reach an agreement, which it did.[8]
As I explained above, Democrats wanted tax increases on the rich and were willing to cut entitlements (which Democrats don't want to cut) in order to get them. Republicans only wanted to cut entitlements and were not willing to consider any tax increases. The Democrats were willing to work together, the Republicans refused.
The fiscal cliff is the automatic across-the-board cuts that will come January 2, 2013, if Congress can't work out a deal to fix the problem, which they have been working on since August 2011. Sadly, Republicans refused to work on this issue and consider tax cuts because they thought they would win the election.
EPT
