The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Well I personally I tend not to trust any politician in terms of tax policy, but how much power does the president really have? Especially now with the "tax reform" people essentially being obstructionists.
And sunprince, I don't enjoy my position being misrepresented any more than you do (because I'm saying that you're the one peddling bullshit science despite evidence to the contrary). If you want to continue arguing about the race thing I am perfectly willing via PM. I was expecting one of us to back down at some point during the arguments but we both are remarkably stubborn it seems. Sorry about derailing the thread lol.
On August 07 2012 01:32 DoubleReed wrote: Well I personally I tend not to trust any politician in terms of tax policy, but how much power does the president really have? Especially now with the "tax reform" people essentially being obstructionists.
It depends. Do you expect the Republican Party to win both the Senate and the Presidency in the upcoming election?
To turn a little away from the pure mud throwing; Who are the third party candidates in this election. I have heard of Johnson from The Libertarians and Barr from Peace and Freedom, but are there any other in the race with a chance of getting 1+% of the votes?
On August 07 2012 01:32 DoubleReed wrote: Well I personally I tend not to trust any politician in terms of tax policy, but how much power does the president really have? Especially now with the "tax reform" people essentially being obstructionists.
It depends. Do you expect the Republican Party to win both the Senate and the Presidency in the upcoming election?
Nah, I'm expecting them to get crushed on both fronts. But I'm optimistic.
On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote: And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears.
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity?
I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better.
And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this.
I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals.
See Mr Daunt. Here is the problem I have with your position. You clearly stated that you didn't want to drag this thread into the mud and then promptly did exactly that. When pointed out to you, you claim it is a legitimate question. I left it, in the hope it would disappear but twenty pages later it is still going. So my point it proven. You brought up this topic knowing it was going to cause a shitstorm and for what purpose? What exactly does this have to do with the current election?
The whole thing has completely devolved from the original question which was about Romney's comments on palestinian/Israeli culture. It has precisely dick to do with how African American culture affects their prosperity. The only reason you brought this up was to give "liberals" a kick in the pants. In case people hadn't noticed, a topic as complicated as the interplay of genetics, history, socio-economics, culture and even god damn geography is not going to be calmly debated in this thread. But you already knew that.
So please, don't deliberately derail the thread. This goes to everyone here. This thread is supposed to be about the election but I have to wade through pages and pages of bullshit before there is something relevant.
/rant
Of course, all of you fair minded liberals clearly don't think that there is anything wrong with black Americans culture, but that's besides the point.
There are obviously problems with black American culture. The interesting question is, why do these problems exist?
(it should go without saying that there are problems with white American culture also, and big ones)
There are problems with Black culture, White Culture and Asian American culture. Can we shut the fuck up about them now? Damn.
I think cultural problems are by far the biggest problems.
edit: but I seem to be getting some collateral flak here from the previous pop-sociobiological thing, so w/e
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
BUT, I will say that this kind of unfairness serves a purpose. Romney says he's a better leader than Obama and well, Obama has faced withering criticism every step of the way. That's been part of the problem with why he hasn't been able to get Congress to make many deals. It's not like Congress will get easier to work with. So if Romney crumbles from the pressure, as he seems to be doing, then that's not a good sign for his ability to get past the frustrations that have stymied Obama.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies would have been for the economy.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy.
So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy.
So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy.
So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years.
Not necessarily the next four years no, since there will be elections in 2014 that the Democrats could win (if they lose the 2012 Congress elections). Also, Obama still has some leeway outside of Congress (in addition to his constitutional powers that do not require "close" collaboration with Congress, for example regarding foreign policy), will not try passing the kind of ill-advised policies Romney is pushing for, will appoint liberal justices on the Supreme Court in case some of them retire, etc.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy.
So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years.
So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for?
On August 06 2012 10:52 acker wrote: Incidentally, has xDaunt said anything about the Tax Policy Center's report? He's commented on a lot of things, but I haven't seen his response to it yet.
I might have missed it in the whole genetics thing, though.
I don't think that Romney's tax plan is detailed enough to fairly score.
As for the plan itself, I'm not really a fan. At best, it is a very modest and timid offering. What Romney should do is offer a more radical plan that scraps the entire tax code and simplifies it. I don't really care too much whether he offers a flat tax, a national sales tax, or a new progressive tax structure so long as the new plan eliminates virtually all of the deductions (ie "tax expenditures"). I'd leave in deductions for children/dependents and for charitable donations, but that's about it.
Do you guys think that corporations have the power to determine our elected officials?
A rep from Apple came in to one of my classes and said that their company alone has the economic power of roughly 25 US states. (not the big ones =P). If they really wanted to fix an election, couldnt they? If not with voter fraud, but instead with control of the politicians themselves or fincancial backing ( which we cant track anymore).
It seems to me the choices for this election are so terrible, (ineffectualy democrats and batshit crazy republicans) that they must me manufactured.
On August 07 2012 04:29 Dagan159 wrote: Do you guys think that corporations have the power to determine our elected officials?
A rep from Apple came in to one of my classes and said that their company alone has the economic power of roughly 25 US states. (not the big ones =P). If they really wanted to fix an election, couldnt they? If not with voter fraud, but instead with control of the politicians themselves or fincancial backing ( which we cant track anymore).
It seems to me the choices for this election are so terrible, (ineffectualy democrats and batshit crazy republicans) that they must me manufactured.
Don't think they're manufactured in that sense. imo it seems like right what you'd expect considering the voter base of America.
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
It is absurd to me that there are still people trying to say that Romney's plan is serious. Even the sincere members of his own party (few that are left) are saying it's absurd. Even the extremely right-leaning Economist has said it is absurd.
We really do choose our own facts. We're close to a tipping point, I think - either the reality-denying crazies will take over and those who have any sense left will migrate to other countries, or we will see a massive political purge in which the rational finally reasserts itself and purges the crazy from both parties. (Although to be honest I see the left as more guilty of "I dont know how to handle myself" than of deliberate and reality-denying crazy.) I hope it's the latter. I get the feeling it will be the former.
i'm sure xDaunt will tell you how it makes sense, stupid biased left wing propaganda machines!!!!!1!
I guess I understand some of the cynicism - from what I understand, Obama's plan is similarly vague, which will cause conservatives to become defensive; but if they want to promote their candidate, they have to do so by holding his feet to the fire, not by diverting the topic. We only benefit when we are honest about ourselves.
The difference, of course, is that Obama does not promise something that is mathematically impossible.
Oh please. Let's not act like there's any intellectual honesty or substantive policy out there. This report is a snipe, pure and simple. Obama has empirical results from the last four years and his policies haven't worked either. He's just not getting hammered for it.
He's getting hammered for it every single day by right-wingers, who conveniently forget that Congress and the Republican opposition have made it particularly difficult for Obama to pass the policies he wants. See for example the American Jobs Act, which never made it through Congress, or the continued blocking of debt relief implementation by the Republican director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. So no, the "empirical results" from the last four years don't really reflect how good Obama's policies were for the economy.
So what part of this post makes you feel that Obama deserves re-election? He will still have to deal with Republicans for the next four years.
So because the Republicans have decided obstructing Obama is worth destroying there country he shouldnt be voted for?
No, but Obama doesn't deserve to win because he can't get past their obstruction. Clinton faced a hostile Congress and still managed to pass budgets and laws. Bush faced a hostile Congress and still managed to pass budgets and laws.
It's not like Obama is the first or only president to face a Congress that has reservations about his policies. But even when he had Democrats running both houses in Congress, bills still had very difficult and painful births.
EPT
