On August 02 2012 12:09 Nymphaceae wrote: Not sure why so many people would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney. I can't see Mitt Romney doing much worse than all the lies Obama has made. It's kind of embarrassing that Obama won the Nobel peace prize, but yet he hasn't done much as far as created peace. The troops are still in the middle east. He says our medicare is bad, when it's not nearly as bad as other countries, and it seems like he's taking it for the worst.
Next time, bring something substantive to this thread. There'a a lot of discussion and disagreement in here but at least the regular contributors here follow the news cycle, have a reasonable knowledge of the election's history, have a unique or thoughtful perspective or know not to talk out of their ass.
Hey, Sorry, not trying to talk out of my ass. I'm just saying that if you look at the past Nobel prize winners in medicine, America has won it almost every other year since the 1960s. When you look at America's survival rate to various types of cancer, I believe it's higher than all other countries. The number percentage of women who have received a pap smear is far higher than in other countries. The average waiting time in hospitals in America is about half the time compared to England and Canada. The availability of static drugs, are more available to American citizens than other countries, especially for our country to be considered one of the least healthy countries in the world. When I was studying pharmacy, I was taught to never turn away some one for drugs, such as insulin, even if they didn't have insurance or the money to pay for it.
I think Obama's healthcare plan is more of a false promise for the worse of the states, in which there will be a larger number of abusers. For some reason more Americans abuse prescription drugs, than illegal drugs. A good, but sad example of this would be the case with Heath Ledger. I loved him as an actor, but I believed that he took his role a bit too seriously as the joker, and tried to take his real life to his character. He ended up seeing several psychiatrists, and was prescribed numerous drugs, in which he would mix them, to possibly get the character of the joker down.
If you were a pharmacy student, didn't you learn that Canda and the UK have long wait times for surgeries and the like because of their gatekeeper provisions? The ACA doesn't do much of anything to gatekeeper programs and also doesn't get up a national formulary, which would be responsible for fewer drugs being available. And I'm pretty sure illegal drugs are more widely abused than prescription drugs; if there's a common problem regarding prescription drug use, it's more getting people to adhere to their regimens than anything.
On August 02 2012 12:09 Nymphaceae wrote: Not sure why so many people would vote for Obama over Mitt Romney. I can't see Mitt Romney doing much worse than all the lies Obama has made. It's kind of embarrassing that Obama won the Nobel peace prize, but yet he hasn't done much as far as created peace. The troops are still in the middle east. He says our medicare is bad, when it's not nearly as bad as other countries, and it seems like he's taking it for the worst.
Next time, bring something substantive to this thread. There'a a lot of discussion and disagreement in here but at least the regular contributors here follow the news cycle, have a reasonable knowledge of the election's history, have a unique or thoughtful perspective or know not to talk out of their ass.
Hey, Sorry, not trying to talk out of my ass. I'm just saying that if you look at the past Nobel prize winners in medicine, America has won it almost every other year since the 1960s. When you look at America's survival rate to various types of cancer, I believe it's higher than all other countries. The number percentage of women who have received a pap smear is far higher than in other countries. The average waiting time in hospitals in America is about half the time compared to England and Canada. The availability of static drugs, are more available to American citizens than other countries, especially for our country to be considered one of the least healthy countries in the world. When I was studying pharmacy, I was taught to never turn away some one for drugs, such as insulin, even if they didn't have insurance or the money to pay for it.
I think Obama's healthcare plan is more of a false promise for the worse of the states, in which there will be a larger number of abusers. For some reason more Americans abuse prescription drugs, than illegal drugs. A good, but sad example of this would be the case with Heath Ledger. I loved him as an actor, but I believed that he took his role a bit too seriously as the joker, and tried to take his real life to his character. He ended up seeing several psychiatrists, and was prescribed numerous drugs, in which he would mix them, to possibly get the character of the joker down.
If you were a pharmacy student, didn't you learn that Canda and the UK have long wait times for surgeries and the like because of their gatekeeper provisions? The ACA doesn't do much of anything to gatekeeper programs and also doesn't get up a national formulary, which would be responsible for fewer drugs being available. And I'm pretty sure illegal drugs are more widely abused than prescription drugs; if there's a common problem regarding prescription drug use, it's more getting people to adhere to their regimens than anything.
Gatekeeper provisions or note, we still have shorter wait times. Prescription drug abuse is a lot more than just people not used to their regimen. Sometimes the drugs are a lot harder to take, because of the effect they have on your mind. Have you ever had coffee or an energy shot? Try taking a few every day, and then come off of them and feel normal. I have a strong feeling that you would have problems functioning without your extra energy.
Have you ever been told something like, "This drug's side effect is that it'll make you feel excited. Is that ok?" Most people think it's a good thing to feel excited, until they feel like some one did something wrong to them. When you're angry and excited at the same time, most people in the SC community would call it nerd rage, while people in the athletic communities would call it roid rage. How do you treat an alcoholic suffering from PTSD with the small list of drugs, that are not to be taken with alcohol. These are all mentally altering drugs, in which most researchers would not do tests on these drugs alcoholics. When some one has a chronic disability, where they do not like the way the drug makes them feel, does that mean that they have to take the drug, because a lot of people end up selling their drugs for extra cash.
Street pharmacy is a hot business right now, and it's fairly easy to get into. All you have to do is have an ok excuse to get the pain killers you want to do/sell. The best excuse I've heard was when a guy was practicing his karate, he punched the side of the board and cut his arm up bad. The truth is that he would cut himself, just for his pain meds. FFS, we're basically supplying a guy with ruhypnol if he mixes it with alcohol. How do you feel that it's so hard to turn some one away from drugs, when they could go home and take advantage of you or your friends.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
So, Obama should counter with a plan that extends Social Security and Medicare to everybody, lowers taxes by 90%, but is revenue neutral. It would be up to Congress to work out the details.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
As for thinking it's "sad" to think policies can boom America out of its problems, that's the basic assumption of all of Obama's economic policies too. Short-term spending policies with increased taxes are justified only by predictions of future growth. The whole "Treasury yields are so low, let's spend our way out" also requires an explosion of economic growth to avoid a debt crisis.
If you don't like silver bullets or magic beans as economic policy, then you need to check yourself in politics. This is how the game is played. What you're looking for is the guy that can browbeat, make deals, influence the public, etc., in a way that can change how society thinks and acts in a positive way. Has Obama done a good job of this? Can Romney do better? The answers to that should determine who you vote for.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
Isn't broadening the base just a euphemism for taxing the poor and middle class?
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
I thought the study indicated that even by closing loopholes that benefit the rich, you would have to make massive tax cuts across the board in order for it to be revenue neutral.
Honest question, haven't read the full article yet.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
As for thinking it's "sad" to think policies can boom America out of its problems, that's the basic assumption of all of Obama's economic policies too. Short-term spending policies with increased taxes are justified only by predictions of future growth. The whole "Treasury yields are so low, let's spend our way out" also requires an explosion of economic growth to avoid a debt crisis.
If you don't like silver bullets or magic beans as economic policy, then you need to check yourself in politics. This is how the game is played. What you're looking for is the guy that can browbeat, make deals, influence the public, etc., in a way that can change how society thinks and acts in a positive way. Has Obama done a good job of this? Can Romney do better? The answers to that should determine who you vote for.
The difference is between following orthodox economic policies (borrowing money and cutting taxes in a recession) and just lying about the effects of your tax policy, which is a huge difference, cutting taxes doesn't raise revenues by itself and to suggest it does is a lie.
Obama had a syntax error that was blown way out of proportion, Romney is putting forward a bald faced lie about the effects of his tax plan, like Republicans have been for a long time. Cutting taxes doesn't raise revenues, its a lie and it has been forever.
Borrowing when treasury yields are NEGATIVE in real dollars just requires proper budgeting and its impossible to lose money on them. Make an investment that only matches inflation, you still make money! That's different than betting on an economic boom, its just matching inflation which is essentially controlled by the US central bank already.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
Seriously, you're comparing a guy using the word 'that' instead of the word 'those' to a someone that wants to give an average tax cut of $250,000 to people that make over a million dollars in cash income but refuses to explain how that would not increase the deficit.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
That's clearly an error on the part of the study, Romney never said he would make his massive tax cuts revenue neutral by broadening the tax base. Thus, the study is a lie. In fact, Romney said that he would make up the $450 billion of revenue loss by-- OH WAIT. He didn't.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
The closing of loopholes was supposed to offset the cuts in tax rates.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
Isn't broadening the base just a euphemism for taxing the poor and middle class?
Edit: oh and happy birthday!
By broadening the base they mean closing loopholes, tax credits and exemptions which can apply to both the poor and the rich.
The study says that it won't be enough - hence the need for taxing the poor and middle classes more, since the study doesn't go into spending cuts and assumes that tax cuts for the rich are an absolute priority. The study also makes a lot of assumptions as to how far you go in broadening the tax base.
FWIW the study isn't bad - it just goes a bit far. It would have sufficed to say that broadening the base wouldn't be enough (realistically) and then toss up the question of how revenue neutrality will be achieved.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
That's clearly an error on the part of the study, Romney never said he would make his massive tax cuts revenue neutral by broadening the tax base. Thus, the study is a lie. In fact, Romney said that he would make up the $450 billion of revenue loss by-- OH WAIT. He didn't.
Cool. So Obama's tax calculator is a lie as well then.
So we have an election between one guy who proposes empty policies and another guy that lies about policies.
A new study describing Mitt Romney’s tax cut proposals as an average tax increase for 95% of Americans is “a joke,” according to Romney adviser Eric Ferhnstrom. But policy aides offered no indication they plan to offer more details on Romney’s plan in order to clarify how it would be paid for and what they assume its effects would be.
The Romney camp has decried the report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center as “biased,” suggesting that their own expectations are that an explosion of economic growth thanks to their policies will make up any revenue gaps in the plan that indicate it will be a drag on middle class Americans.
But asked on a conference call whether the Romney campaign would offer up any more details on how they believe their plan would work instead, policy adviser Jonathan Burks demurred, saying it would be up to Congress to help fill in the blanks.
“The governor’s plan essentially lays out the parameters that he wants to achieve: lowering the tax rate by 20 percent, achieving revenue neutrality, and maintaining progressivity and within that he would write a tax plan that achieves those goals,” he said. “So, it’s not a question of ‘today we have a 2000 page tax plan that could be scored.’”
The saddest thing about this is the part where the Romney camp derides the report from a nonpartisan institute as biased.
The Republican hook is all about "common sense," and "what they'd do on main street," and yet I'm an engineer in a small town, and I know for a fact that if I derided a finding on my peer review as "biased" I'd be laughed at and then told to fix it.
Why is it that we now think it's okay to paint facts which do not support our worldview as non-facts? And why does this practice so strongly seem to be perpetuated by the right? I would like to think it's a human flaw, rather than a flaw of one's political affiliation, but am struggling to find evidence to support it.
The second saddest part is that they expect people to believe that a tax policy could ever cause "an explosion" of economic growth. They're trying to sell us a magic bullet because they know we'll want to buy it, because we've demonstrated that we're unwilling to fix a problem the right way. That's actually physically revolting.
Well, you're failing to note that the author of the report did serve in the Obama administration on the Council of Economic Advisors. So the institution is nonpartisan in the sense that it doesn't take money from either side, but that's different from saying its members are unbiased.
It's also false to claim this is something that only happens on the right. Obama had his own unforced error and mass backpedaling with the whole "you didn't build that" thing.
How the hell is this even remotely connected to the response of the Romney campaign to the study? That was Obama getting taken out of context, as it has already been thoroughly explained here. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the complete discarding of the study by the Romney campaign without any sort of valid explanation other than "they're biased" and "the economy will boom under our plan".
The study is valid in some respects - that 'broadening the base' won't be enough to pay for the rate cuts. But it is clearly biased since they decided to assume that revenue neutrality would be achieved by taxing the poor and middle class. That assumption seems pretty deliberately designed to make headlines.
That's clearly an error on the part of the study, Romney never said he would make his massive tax cuts revenue neutral by broadening the tax base. Thus, the study is a lie. In fact, Romney said that he would make up the $450 billion of revenue loss by-- OH WAIT. He didn't.
Cool. So Obama's tax calculator is a lie as well then.
So we have an election between one guy who proposes empty policies and another guy that lies about policies.
Awesome election...
To be fair, tax policies are probably the worst thing to ask about if you want honesty from politicians.
By the way, I totally didn't know about the hilarious flip-flopping on the israel-palestine thing. Truly amazing.
EPT
