|
|
I wish the moderator had like a fact sheet of all statistics that the candidates would likely cite so he could just call them on it on the spot...
"Well actually, there are THIS many Americans out of work"
"Well actually, there are only THIS many independent studies that show that"
"Well actually, health care premiums didn't go down, they went up"
etc. etc...
|
On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:On October 04 2012 14:31 th3j35t3r wrote:
Romney has had the same platform since the start of his campaign, try proving me otherwise. All the people complaining probably only get their news from the Huffington post. I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal. But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad. So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them. So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions.
But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich.
Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be at least the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem.
Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence.
Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan.
|
On October 05 2012 02:14 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:01 Smat wrote:
I find it funny that people acutally expected Romney to stay so far to the right for the general election. Of course he moved to the center, and he will stay there when he gets into office. The hardcore right in America is just plain stupid and should be rightly ignored once their zeal has been tapped in the primaries. I don't see why Romney won't legislate from the White House the same way he legislated from Mass. Of course the Repbulican congress will have the most say in how he operates. The thing is, if he actually campaigned that way he would win the election easily. I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and hate that I can never vote Republican, even if I think their economic/role of government ideas make sense, because their social policies on things like abortion and gay marriage are so batshit crazy. If a Republican candidate can convince me he won't attempt to repeal basic women's rights we've had for decades or continue a pointless war on homosexuals being able to marry, I'd probably vote for him. But with a Republican congress and a Republican party pressuring him to stick to the party line, I don't see it happening. Think about it, if he put himself squarely in the middle of the two parties (after securing the nomination of course), he would be endearing himself to a lot of people on the fence who are worried about the economy while Republicans would still be forced to vote for him because the alternative is Obama.
I don't think Romney is quite as good a candidate as you, but we'll ignore that for now.
Even if he did go full centrist, he would lose-- the media and political environment is just too polarized. The far right-wingers would probably shit themselves and do something silly like writing in Sarah Palin. The more moderate right would be happy with him... maybe A couple independents and the majority of the left would be like "what the fuck, you switched your position, we're not falling for that shit, we're gonna vote Obama". Yes he might get some of the middle ground, but he'd lose the far right, his "base" as well.
Going further into hypotheticaland, if he won, he'd have to deal with a lot of angry far right-wing congressmen.
|
Debate was about what I expected. The hungry challenger was hungry, the incumbent slothful and unfocused. I don't know why incumbent presidents don't do well in the first debate, but it seems to be a trend.
What I liked (and what the commentariat hated) was Lehrer being pushed to the side. We don't need moderators at these debates. They should put the two candidates up there and have them go back and forth at each other. And time limits are nonsense, and so is the debate only being an hour and a half. I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney and Barack Obama can manage to keep an interesting conversation going on their own for about as long as they'd like.
Romney walked over Lehrer and Obama until Obama realized he was at a debate and started ignoring Lehrer too. And while people keep saying this was the best performance by a Republican at a debate since Reagan, I think it was the best debate period since the Reagan-Mondale and Reagan-Carter debates. The two candidates were talking to each other, not past each other (most of the time), they were aggressive while being respectful, they stayed away (mostly) from repeating talking points, and the result was a real debate that actually gave people useful information about both candidates (unlike pretty much every debate since, well, Reagan was president).
There was a feeling of authenticity to this debate. Both men didn't waste too much time with gotcha nonsense (mostly because Romney smacked Obama around the first few times he tried it, and Obama didn't try it again for an hour). Obama wasn't terrible but he looked unprepared and disengaged compared to Mittens.
Mitt won it though by a country mile. He looked more energized, passionate, and authoritative. Obama looked like he didn't know what hit him until about an hour in when he started punching back consistently. Romney managed to present himself clearly and make a case for himself clearly. Obama's job was to make Mitt the real person look like the Mitt who exists in Obama ads, and he failed at that. He has to do better in the next debate or the third one won't matter.
|
On October 05 2012 02:15 kmillz wrote:
I wish the moderator had like a fact sheet of all statistics that the candidates would likely cite so he could just call them on it on the spot...
"Well actually, there are THIS many Americans out of work"
"Well actually, there are only THIS many independent studies that show that"
"Well actually, health care premiums didn't go down, they went up"
etc. etc...
That's the two candidates' jobs. It's a debate LOL.
|
On October 05 2012 02:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Going further into hypotheticaland, if he won, he'd have to deal with a lot of angry far right-wing congressmen.
Yes, ideological and partisan polarization in Congress is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful changes or reforms. The ideological divide in Congress is so wide, and party discipline becoming so high, that even simple procedures are becoming gigantic battles. Both presidential candidates have at time said done reasonable, even good, things - but they'll never pass Congress. Even if they could find ideological middle ground, the other party might tank a president's proposal just out if spite. (ie, what many Democrats feel has been going on the last 4 years)
|
Canada11367 Posts
@DeepElem
There's a reason why we have structure to debates. And that is given enough time the more dominant personality will just over talk the other and people think they won the debate because they talked the entire time and wouldn't let a word in edge wise. But that isn't a debate so much as a monologue. Or alternatively they both try and over talk the other and it turns into a yelling match. I absolutely think there is value to concisely stating your points within a certain period of time and countering within another period of time. However, I don't like it when the talks are too narrow a time limit like some of the Republican primaries. They need some space to make a reasonable argument rather than reduce it to a pithy quote or slogan.
|
On October 05 2012 02:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:15 kmillz wrote:
I wish the moderator had like a fact sheet of all statistics that the candidates would likely cite so he could just call them on it on the spot...
"Well actually, there are THIS many Americans out of work"
"Well actually, there are only THIS many independent studies that show that"
"Well actually, health care premiums didn't go down, they went up"
etc. etc... That's the two candidates' jobs. It's a debate LOL.
Yes, but if they are both lying, and someone calls them on a lie, how do you know that THEY aren't lying about the lie? -_-
I agree though, and Romney did the better job of calling Obama's lies. I thought it was funny everytime he was like *WTF? face* "We don't have a $5 trillion dollar tax cut plan, I don't know where the President keeps getting this" lol
|
On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 14:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
I live in Southern NH, and as a Democrat I thought Mitt Romney did an excellent job as Governor. He was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and created the blueprint for the ACA in Massachusetts. He was quite liberal.
But then he sold out his ideals to run for President. He is now pro-life, doesn't support the assault weapons ban he supported as Governor, and now says that the ACA, when even the advisers to Romney when he created his healthcare plan claim what he did in Mass is essentially the same as the ACA, is bad.
So yes, his platform is same at the start of his campaign, but almost completely the opposite of what he did as Governor...
So who are we electing? What are his plans? What is his tax plan?
Please, tell me. Because no one, not even you, knows. Because he won't share them.
So feel free to vote for the unknown. His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral. That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan.
The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too.
The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system.
Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base:
Fiscal Commission
Bipartisan Policy Center
|
|
|
In last night's debate Obama showed his major weakness in my mind that has haunted his entire first administration, the inability to call out the opposition for their lies/misrepresentations. I wish he would grow a backbone. It's like choosing between a liar and a wimp. Obviously, I'm going to choose the wimp, but this sucks.
Edit: This makes it seem like the debate was going to influence my vote. It wasn't. Social issues are more important to me than economic ones. Obama was always getting my vote unless the Republican Party laid down its bible.
|
On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 04 2012 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
His tax plan is to cut rates and pay for them by eliminating deductions / exemptions. Exactly how much rates will be cut by and exactly which deductions / exemptions will pay for that is unknown as it will be battled over. Specifying which deduction / exemption you want to get rid of realistically opens you up to attacks from special interest groups. He has stated that his goal is a 20% cut in rates and that he puts a priority on keeping deductions / exemptions that encourage savings and investment. He has also stated that he wants the overall tax burden on the rich to not fall and that the overall plan should be revenue neutral.
That's about as much detail as you can expect. The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction. He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague? What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics? And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit? Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center
That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.
Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increasing the efficiency of the tax code and broadening the base will boost the economy is to say that what's holding back the economy now is that people are really confused about how to fill in their tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are being taxed currently.
|
By 'more' you mean rehashing the same arguments? C'mon, try using facts, logic and reason. I know you can do it.
|
On October 05 2012 02:49 Falling wrote:
@DeepElem
There's a reason why we have structure to debates. And that is given enough time the more dominant personality will just over talk the other and people think they won the debate because they talked the entire time and wouldn't let a word in edge wise. But that isn't a debate so much as a monologue. Or alternatively they both try and over talk the other and it turns into a yelling match. I absolutely think there is value to concisely stating your points within a certain period of time and countering within another period of time. However, I don't like it when the talks are too narrow a time limit like some of the Republican primaries. They need some space to make a reasonable argument rather than reduce it to a pithy quote or slogan.
I disagree. I think the reason we have structure is the horror of "unscripted moments" that campaign managers and "political experts" have. And I think that, if one man turned it into a monologue, we'd know both were unfit for the presidency. One for allowing himself to be dominated, and the other for being so domineering and rude. And I don't think that having no moderator would turn the debate into a copy of an MSNBC or FOX-style "here's our Democratic strategist, here's our Republican strategist, now watch them yell at each other" segment. At least not with these two guys.
|
On October 05 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:By 'more' you mean rehashing the same arguments? C'mon, try using facts, logic and reason. I know you can do it.
Rehashing the same arguments eh? I'll take "What last night's debate was all about" for 5000, JonnyBNoho.
For both of them. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2012 17:31 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
The fact that he wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, but not cut taxes on the rich is a contradiction.
He continues to repeat that he will make his plan revenue neutral, but still doesn't specify how. And it's been shown that meeting these goals are impossible. The "6 studies" he cites in support of his tax plans have been debunked. Yet you say he isn't vague?
What part of "I will cut taxes and make it revenue neutral, but I will not tell you how" is not vague? If it's not vague, then what are the specifics?
And it's not just that. He's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with what? He's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending on what? He's already said that he's going to increase defense spending, wants to waste $700 in Medicare savings that was part of Obamacare, and deliver a large tax cut, so what will Romney cut to reduce the deficit?
Not vague? Are you joking? There are ZERO specifics. What will Romney do? What will he cut? I have no fucking idea. No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently.
Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you.
Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math 
I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.
|
On October 05 2012 03:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:By 'more' you mean rehashing the same arguments? C'mon, try using facts, logic and reason. I know you can do it.
It is a rehash because nothing's changed, except Romney has repudiated his amorphous tax plan, and imbued it from criticism by claiming that every possible attack against his planned is a false strawman, because he has no solid plan.
|
On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No joking, candidates generally are short on details. Romney being short on details is nothing new. Obama didn't have a fully fleshed out Obamacare plan prior to taking office. Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate.
Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close?
It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer.
Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
|
On October 05 2012 03:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 03:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 02:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote:On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 05 2012 01:13 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]
Not fully fleshed out plan >> no plan Lower rates paid for with fewer deductions / exemptions. Sounds like a not fully fleshed out plan to me. The only plan that has been released he completely dismissed in the debates. Obama brought it up and Romney was like "Oh no. We're not doing that." It's amazing how Romney talks like this. Completely dismissive of something he's been running on for a while now. You have absolutely no idea what he's going to do in office, because he keeps dismissing his own policies. I'm still trying to get my head around how he managed to get a free ride on claiming that he's NOT going to cut taxes on the rich, when his plan (on his own website) calls for a 20% marginal tax cut on EVERYONE. Paid for by reducing deductions / exemptions. But then he's still reducing the tax rates on the rich. Even if what he really meant was that on net, the rich will not pay less taxes because of closed loopholes, that still makes no sense, it's not possible to close enough loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral. Further, interpreted this way, the statement would mean that Romney promises to closed enough loopholes specifically on the rich to be greater than the tax cuts he would give to the rich. This just adds another constraint into an already impossible math problem. Under this interpretation, it's just rejigging where tax money comes from. How does rearranging the tax system in a way that the final tax revenue is exactly the same boost the economy? Where's the evidence. Of course, we're both just making shit up about Romney's plan here, because he hasn't specified a plan. The idea of lowering marginal rates and closing loopholes has long been advocated by various tax experts. Its what Simpson-Bowles advocated too. The idea is that it will boost the economy through efficiency. Savings and investment will be made where it is efficient - not where the government directs it. Taxes will be less complex so less money will be wasted trying to game the system. Different plans but both have the same general idea of lowering rates while broadening the base: Fiscal CommissionBipartisan Policy Center That doesn't address the first part of my post about the fact that Romney will reduce marginal tax rates on the rich and that his plan doesn't add up.Also, it's laughable that rejigging the tax system would have anything more than the most minimal effect in boosting the economy. To suggest that increased efficiency in the tax code will boost the economy is to say that what's holding the economy is that people are really confused about how to fill in the tax return, that businesses would hire more workers if only they didn't have to spend so much money paying their tax accountants, and that not enough people are been taxed currently. Your point about reducing marginal rates is irrelevant. If you reduce taxes on the rich by $1 and raise taxes by $1 you have not given them a tax cut. I don't know why this is hard math for you. Prove that it doesn't add up please. I'd love to see your math I also love how you dismiss its effect because you only know how to look at the economy in the short-run aggregate. Where's that $1 going to come from? How is Romney going to make up that loss revenue from his tax cut? What loopholes is he going to close? It's a hopeless question. You will never answer it, because Romney has no answer. Why should I have to prove anything. It's Romney's plan, so the burden of proof is on him (or you, since you support it). Luckily, the TPC has already done the math for him and said that it's mathematically impossible.
Nope, just put more on the table than the TPC has assumed or reduce the reduction in the marginal rates.
EZPZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
