On August 12 2012 02:12 Rassy wrote: How is mit romney not an auto vote for every working american? The guy achieved so much in his corporate career. Obama never achieved annything in that area, he is a politician. America now has the change to finally vote for a candidate with real talents to manage and turn around difficult situations , but instead they all seem to dislike him because he worked so hard and efficient that he is rich. Isnt becomming rich the american dream? How can you not vote for romney?
They ignore Romney's promise to maintain all current incentives for Savings/Investment which is what makes it impossible to do without favoring the wealthy. They also treat deficit neutral-tax cuts as equivalent to deficit-financed tax cuts for stimulative effect. Tax cuts that are revenue neutral will probably not have a significant impact on growth because its mostly shuffling money around. (Yes there is a net gain but it's small, and takes time as equilibrium adjusts)
They also ignore how unreasonable the claim of "instant 4% GDP growth" is, which really throws a wrench in all the numbers. There's also a lot wrong with their historical claims and analogies but we will ignore that.
On August 12 2012 03:18 Savio wrote: About Paul Ryan...
Romney picking Paul Ryan is the biggest development of the campaign by far and may end up being the single biggest determinant of the shape of the election:
1. Now that Paul Ryan is on the ticket, that implies that Romney has signed on completely to the plan , not just passively but such that you could now consider it the Romney/Ryan plan
2. The Ryan plan is the first serious budget put out by either party to address the long term problem of entitlements in our country. It cannot be easily set aside and must be debated on its merits against Obama's plan (which has no permament fix to the entitlement plan)
3. This ensures that this campaign is NOT going to be about petty issues as Obama has tried to make it out to be. Nobody cares how much taxes Romney paid when there is a real debate to be had. How much taxes he paid or the closing of 1 steel plant are NOT big issues. They are sideshow issues that have been good to Obama. But I think from now on, this is going to be a debate about priciples and plans rather than character assassinations.
4. Its been shown throughout this campaign that when the discussion is about the economy, Romney fairs better. When it is about anything else, Obama fairs better. This choice puts the economy and the deficit front and center. Obama's 2 biggest failures will be what this election are gonna be about.
Those issues are symptoms of a larger problem in America. Obama is attempting to paint a picture across the entire election, one that highlights the flaws in the system which seemingly disproportionately favors people like Romney. You can't run a campaign directly talking about 1 or 2 issues, because you're just going to start sounding like Ron Paul.
Nope. What Obama is doing is trying to win a campaign by stirring up the worst of what is in us: envy, pride, anger. Even Bill Clinton achnoledged that Romney had a "stirling" business career. Just look at Staples, Burger King, Sport Authority, all businesses he helped.
What Obama is trying to do is say: Romney is rich and you aren't. Romney paid this amount of taxes (legal and common among multimillionaires, but still less than if he had "tried" to pay more taxes). You should hate him. Hate his success and hate him That is cheap politics.
If Obama wants to talk about the "larger problems in America" let him get serious and start debating his vision against Romney/Ryan plan without resorting to misleading/false/biased reports as the one put out by the Tax Policy Center which clearly had an agenda and isn't supported by any other group that has analyzed the plan.
The plan says these cuts would be financed in a revenue-neutral way. First, by "broadening the tax base," which means reducing or eliminating tax deductions and loopholes as in the tax reform of 1986. The Romney campaign doesn't specify which deductions—no campaign ever does—but it has been explicit in saying that the burden would fall most on higher tax brackets. So in return for paying lower rates, the wealthy get fewer deductions.
This specifically is something they addressed in the report. They eliminated all the deductions and credits which favor the wealthy the most. Turns out, though, a 20% reduction in rates for the wealthy can't be made up by those deductions anyways, and those deductions are usually targeted towards middle class families, so eliminating them puts a higher burden on those middle class families (which outpaces the 20% reduction in rates).
This is exactly what "broadening the base" means.
The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.
As for this, the tax code hasn't become more progressive. What has happened is that the overall policies pursued in the past 30 years have allowed or encouraged more income to shift to the top. With less of the income pie going to the middle and lower classes, the wealthy have ended paying a larger portion of taxes.
he is intelligent, and much more articulate and passionate than Romney can ever hope to be. Then why does he target medicare/medicaid before military spending ? If he wants to take drastic measures to decrease the deficit that would be the most logical place to shrink first.
he is intelligent, and much more articulate and passionate than Romney can ever hope to be. Then why does he target medicare/medicaid before military spending ? If he wants to take drastic measures to decrease the deficit that would be the most logical place to shrink first.
I agree with that actually. I like everything in his budget because entitlements are bankrupting our country to a MUCH larger degree than military spending, but I would also like to see military cuts as well. But its still better than adding more entitlements like Obama proproses.
I'm done talking to somebody that continues to insist an organization as upright and fair as the Tax Policy Center is a biased organization. You have been fed so much bullshit by your self segregated GOP media conglomerates that it's all you can spew. If it doesn't fit your narrative, it's a liberal source that's out to get you.
That's dated, not about the budget, its about a draft of the Health Care Bill which has been scored by the CBO and does reduce the deficit in the legislation that passed. So... its just not relevant since its about a bill never passed and everything he's saying about it is incorrect if you are talking about the bill that actually passed.
Good try buddy, but that has nothing to do with any budgets or anything that ever happened.
he is intelligent, and much more articulate and passionate than Romney can ever hope to be. Then why does he target medicare/medicaid before military spending ? If he wants to take drastic measures to decrease the deficit that would be the most logical place to shrink first.
I agree with that actually. I like everything in his budget because entitlements are bankrupting our country to a MUCH larger degree than military spending, but I would also like to see military cuts as well. But its still better than adding more entitlements like Obama proproses.
There is also a confusion with numbers on the tax rate. Ryan says tax rate for the top will go over 50% (???) once everything is said and done with the Obama administration. The left on the other hand says the tax rates must return to the Clinton era (pre bush tax cuts). There is some exaggeration or misunderstanding between the two sides. Then we have to consider the tax loopholes the top 1% will use to further lower the amount they pay. So basically I disagree with his tax policy, agree with his entitlement reform. Hope to see military cuts as well (which won't happen).
For me however, the more important issues are health care and education reform. I believe the economy will take a turn up regardless of who is president, and I simply do not see the republicans addressing education. They are also going to repeal affordable care act which may have its flaws but is a step in the right direction for this country. Student loans are getting ridiculous and someone really needs to address these issues. Going to medical school this fall and I will have 300k debt after I am done... Degrees are losing value and student loans are on the rise but no one even talks about it.
he is intelligent, and much more articulate and passionate than Romney can ever hope to be. Then why does he target medicare/medicaid before military spending ? If he wants to take drastic measures to decrease the deficit that would be the most logical place to shrink first.
I agree with that actually. I like everything in his budget because entitlements are bankrupting our country to a MUCH larger degree than military spending, but I would also like to see military cuts as well. But its still better than adding more entitlements like Obama proproses.
There is also a confusion with numbers on the tax rate. Ryan says tax rate for the top will go over 50% (???) once everything is said and done with the Obama administration. The left on the other hand says the tax rates must return to the Clinton era (pre bush tax cuts). There is some exaggeration or misunderstanding between the two sides. Then we have to consider the tax loopholes the top 1% will use to further lower the amount they pay. So basically I disagree with his tax policy, agree with his entitlement reform. Hope to see military cuts as well (which won't happen).
For me however, the more important issues are health care and education reform. I believe the economy will take a turn up regardless of who is president, and I simply do not see the republicans addressing education. They are also going to repeal affordable care act which may have its flaws but is a step in the right direction for this country. Student loans are getting ridiculous and someone really needs to address these issues. Going to medical school this fall and I will have 300k debt after I am done... Degrees are losing value and student loans are on the rise but no one even talks about it.
Part of the problem with education is that we have no reliable public source for professional training. Classical education (colleges) have huge public capital thrown into them, but not everybody can make it work for them. There are people who would be better suited for trade businesses and general low-skilled work, but that's seen as an option of last resort. There should be a route that high school students can take that will put them in a well paying job that has the ability to vault them into the middle class. Ideally, I think community colleges should be like this, but too many people think CCs should be tiny 2 year universities and nurse training centers.
he is intelligent, and much more articulate and passionate than Romney can ever hope to be. Then why does he target medicare/medicaid before military spending ? If he wants to take drastic measures to decrease the deficit that would be the most logical place to shrink first.
I agree with that actually. I like everything in his budget because entitlements are bankrupting our country to a MUCH larger degree than military spending, but I would also like to see military cuts as well. But its still better than adding more entitlements like Obama proproses.
There is also a confusion with numbers on the tax rate. Ryan says tax rate for the top will go over 50% (???) once everything is said and done with the Obama administration. The left on the other hand says the tax rates must return to the Clinton era (pre bush tax cuts). There is some exaggeration or misunderstanding between the two sides. Then we have to consider the tax loopholes the top 1% will use to further lower the amount they pay. So basically I disagree with his tax policy, agree with his entitlement reform. Hope to see military cuts as well (which won't happen).
For me however, the more important issues are health care and education reform. I believe the economy will take a turn up regardless of who is president, and I simply do not see the republicans addressing education. They are also going to repeal affordable care act which may have its flaws but is a step in the right direction for this country. Student loans are getting ridiculous and someone really needs to address these issues. Going to medical school this fall and I will have 300k debt after I am done... Degrees are losing value and student loans are on the rise but no one even talks about it.
Top tax rates, when taking into account state taxes, medicare, etc are roughly around 40-50% depending on which state you live in. (This does not include SS, estate, property, and sales taxes because these things differ too much between individuals.) If we were to return to Clinton tax rates, the top tax rate would be above 50% for most high earners, except those in states with very low state taxes. Personally, that's why I would favor a reduction in tax breaks/loopholes instead of just raising rates, because well a lot of people pay less then their specified rates, raising taxes would just increase the already very high rate for people who don't take advantage of or have acess to loopholes.
I don't understand how people can think that the Tax Policy Center is a liberal organization out to get conservatives. They've been doing tax analysis for years for almost every tax plan brought forth by Congress and candidates alike...what changed in the last three weeks?
On August 12 2012 04:37 acker wrote: I don't understand how people can think that the Tax Policy Center is a liberal organization out to get conservatives. They've been doing tax analysis for years for almost every tax plan brought forth by Congress and candidates alike...what changed in the last three weeks?
So the Romney Camp has already stated they are not going with the Ryan Budget but making their own.
Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.
Romney’s administration will go through the budget line by line and ask two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, should we borrow money from China to pay for it?
Mitt Romney will start with the easiest cut of all: Obamacare, a trillion-dollar entitlement we don’t want and can’t afford.
That's dated, not about the budget, its about a draft of the Health Care Bill which has been scored by the CBO and does reduce the deficit in the legislation that passed. So... its just not relevant since its about a bill never passed and everything he's saying about it is incorrect if you are talking about the bill that actually passed.
Good try buddy, but that has nothing to do with any budgets or anything that ever happened.
Edit: clarity of phrasing
I think the version of the ACA that passed still has some of those elements in it. Most notably a fair chunk of the bill is paid for by paying hospitals and doctors less ... which isn't expected to actually happen so it will end up costing more than the CBO projects.
That's dated, not about the budget, its about a draft of the Health Care Bill which has been scored by the CBO and does reduce the deficit in the legislation that passed. So... its just not relevant since its about a bill never passed and everything he's saying about it is incorrect if you are talking about the bill that actually passed.
Good try buddy, but that has nothing to do with any budgets or anything that ever happened.
Edit: clarity of phrasing
As Ryan and Obama both said, healthcare reform is the same as budget debate. But for clarification I'll edit the post "Mr President, as you said, Health Care Reform IS budget reform". Its in the first 30 seconds. :\
That's dated, not about the budget, its about a draft of the Health Care Bill which has been scored by the CBO and does reduce the deficit in the legislation that passed. So... its just not relevant since its about a bill never passed and everything he's saying about it is incorrect if you are talking about the bill that actually passed.
Good try buddy, but that has nothing to do with any budgets or anything that ever happened.
Edit: clarity of phrasing
I think the version of the ACA that passed still has some of those elements in it. Most notably a fair chunk of the bill is paid for by paying hospitals and doctors less ... which isn't expected to actually happen so it will end up costing more than the CBO projects.
That's the doc fix, and it's an argument that has been debunked many times.
You've been wrong about everything concerning the cost of Obamacare and fail to believe how the CBO projects it to reduce the deficit. If Obamacare would increase the deficit why would repealing it also increase the deficit by $109 billion (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471)?
On August 12 2012 03:51 aksfjh wrote: I'm done talking to somebody that continues to insist an organization as upright and fair as the Tax Policy Center is a biased organization. You have been fed so much bullshit by your self segregated GOP media conglomerates that it's all you can spew. If it doesn't fit your narrative, it's a liberal source that's out to get you.
They made themselves look biased. They take Romney's plan (20% across the board tax cut for everyone) and say that because he claims that it will be revenue neutral (and they doubt it will be revenue neutral), they must necessarily "assume" an actual tax increase. They add in to his plan a tax increase on the middle class based on the assumption it would be necessary to be revenue neutral. They don't just stop at "We conlude that it is unlikely to be revenue neutral" They say, "Romney is going to raise the tax burden on the middle class" despite his plan to cut taxes for them 20%.
Their analysis very well may be correct, but they went farther than a group who didn't wanna make a political statement would go. They added in their assumption that middle class taxes would go up in order to be revenue neutral and then Obama conveniently has the catch phrase he needs, "Romney will raise taxes" rather than the less powerful, "Romney's plan may not be revenue neutral".
EPT
