On October 05 2012 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] 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.
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
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
8 of the 10 points Obama lost on intrade were lost before the debate began, more proof the debate was decided on expectations and over before it began.
8 of the 10 points Obama lost on intrade were lost before the debate began, more proof the debate was decided on expectations and over before it began.
maybe its time to get a couple shares?
This is your last time to call it in for a decent price.
Do you know how much pain I was in when Obama was at 54% during the period where Mittens was expected to select Rubio and I was unable to buy for a few reasons? Its like I could see all that free money just saying "See ya later dude, LOL!!!"
On October 05 2012 01:46 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
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.
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
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
On October 05 2012 03:14 Risen wrote: 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.
Romney also said he would end the subsidy to PBS. So on the budget/economic side of things, Romney's also unacceptable.
xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
I will never understand people who vote based on social issues. And that goes for Republicans or Democrats. You are telling me 100% debt to GDP and the nature of government control over the economy matters less to you than gay people getting married?
Do you think the president even controls whether gay people get married or women can get abortions? Those decisions are made by the courts by and large, abortion isn't going to change and gay marriage is inevitable. So your entire vote for the presidency resides on the possibility for a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand the philosophy. Actually, I do understand I think. Social issues are emotional issues, people are expressing blind moral indignation.
On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
Could you maybe specify what you mean when you say moving to the center? I'm having trouble remembering examples of this in the debate.
Biden you are a fool if you don't call out Ryan on the new platform Romney created, seemingly out of thin air, last night. Not sure if Ryan would agree with half of what Romney said if he was being honest.
Thankfully Biden is aggressive. Maybe the moderator will actually call them out on some facts as well and not be useless.
On October 05 2012 02:37 DeepElemBlues wrote: 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.
Romney literally has run anything the past five years. He has record to criticize -- at least not one that people remember.
Obama has a record of good and bad decisions over the past four years in the aftermath of a financial collapse.
Obama has a lot of homework and practicing to do. He has the harder job in the debates. Romney can continue to be vague, talk about governing 'principles' and just pick apart every decision Obama has made.
I didn't watch the debate but from what I've read people saw the Obama that even Hillary Clinton started to see during the Democrat primaries in 2008, someone who is inept and has bad ideas.
On October 05 2012 04:51 Darknat wrote: I didn't watch the debate but from what I've read people saw the Obama that even Hillary Clinton started to see during the Democrat primaries in 2008, someone who is inept and has bad ideas.
I didn't read your post but from what I've heard about it it was pretty terrible.
On October 05 2012 04:43 jdseemoreglass wrote: I will never understand people who vote based on social issues. And that goes for Republicans or Democrats. You are telling me 100% debt to GDP and the nature of government control over the economy matters less to you than gay people getting married?
Do you think the president even controls whether gay people get married or women can get abortions? Those decisions are made by the courts by and large, abortion isn't going to change and gay marriage is inevitable. So your entire vote for the presidency resides on the possibility for a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand the philosophy. Actually, I do understand I think. Social issues are emotional issues, people are expressing blind moral indignation.
On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
Could you maybe specify what you mean when you say moving to the center? I'm having trouble remembering examples of this in the debate.
While I agree there are problems with how we break down economic vs. social issues, you gave some very bad examples. Whether or not I personally am allowed to be married or have access to abortion makes a way bigger difference to me than the debt to GDP ratio in the short-, medium- and long-run, yes. The parties even broadly agree on economic issues at this point, it's just that everyone in the GOP disagrees with everything Obama says because he said it.
On October 05 2012 01:56 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote]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.
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
The TPC already puts everything viable on the table, except those which Romney ruled out. If you cut less than 20%, then that just goes to show that Romney's plan is mathematically impossible, and that he hasn't thought this through. Of course, there's no doubt that he hasn't thought this through since he keeps talking about loophole closing the the abstract but refuses to give a single loophole he would close.
You say that I'm dismissing the long run effect of the Romney tax plan, and that I've only looked at the short run. But the depressed economy is a short run problem. It makes no sense that the way to get out of a recession is to simplify the tax code. What if we've simplified everything to a flat 15% tax on everything and everyone, and have another recession. What then is the solution? How can we simplify further? And what about the long run? Where's the evidence that this is good in the long run, and where's the evidence that what's good in the long run is good in fixing the short run? In the short run, there is no debt problem, but in the long run there is. So how is it a good idea to give a tax cut which almost certainly cannot be paid for in the long run? In the long run, there needs to be a tax increase.
No, we've been over this. The TPC took off the table what they assumed Romney ruled out. Romney has since stated that he's very willing to eliminate deductions for higher earners. And there's plenty room to lower rates while closing loopholes. That's what Simpson-Bowles wanted to do - reduce the highest tax rates to 29% or less - right in line with what Romney wants.
Romney's tax plan can be read on his website. Unless Romney makes changes to it, the TPC's analysis was perfectly valid - one of its two promises has to be broken for the other one to hold.
On October 05 2012 01:45 xDaunt wrote: I'm really amused at the post mortem comments from some of the liberals in this thread, particularly all these remarks about how Romney lied his ass off. These comments are as delusional as the pre-debate comments about how Obama is a superior debater to Romney.
They've been getting all their news from liberals. Hearing the man flesh out his views is a foreign concept to them and they haven't realized the spin they have been hearing was... spin.
The New York Times is claiming Romney is a liar because he backed away from tax cuts for the rich. Liberals citing it like crazy on blogs and forums. NYT, there is a difference between revenue neutral reducing rates and closing loopholes while maintaining the share paid by the rich (Romney's real principles) and a "huge tax cut for the rich" which was your straw man against him.
CNN is claiming Romney lied the whole debate and his policies are now similar to Obama on green energy, education, health care, Wall Street regulation, and he likes what he did in Mass. Apparently it is news to CNN that Romney can like green energy without wanting it subsidized (I like beef jerky and sex but I don't want them subsidized), education is state and local level and Romney clearly said as much, he clearly disagreed on Obamacare, he had to emphasize he believed in some regulation because of the level of smears laid against him but he still plainly disagreed with Dodd-Frank, and he has always said he liked the Mass law as a solution for Mass given his Democratic opposition there along with it being a state solution.
Where they are coming up with this "lies" drives me crazy.
On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
I almost find it funny, the only parts of the plan Romney is willing to talk about are the parts that are either identical or similar to Obama's. He's like "Well I'm hiding my plan, but taking notes from yours!" :D
What did dauntx score end up as btw, anyone finalize the tally?
On October 05 2012 04:43 jdseemoreglass wrote: I will never understand people who vote based on social issues. And that goes for Republicans or Democrats. You are telling me 100% debt to GDP and the nature of government control over the economy matters less to you than gay people getting married?
Do you think the president even controls whether gay people get married or women can get abortions? Those decisions are made by the courts by and large, abortion isn't going to change and gay marriage is inevitable. So your entire vote for the presidency resides on the possibility for a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand the philosophy. Actually, I do understand I think. Social issues are emotional issues, people are expressing blind moral indignation.
On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
Could you maybe specify what you mean when you say moving to the center? I'm having trouble remembering examples of this in the debate.
Yes. I'm able to live anywhere in the world. I want to live in the greatest country. Greatest to some means economic/military power, to me it means the greatest representatives of mankind gathered under one nation.
Edit: I like social freedom. I support restrictions on many economic freedoms.
On October 05 2012 04:43 jdseemoreglass wrote: I will never understand people who vote based on social issues. And that goes for Republicans or Democrats. You are telling me 100% debt to GDP and the nature of government control over the economy matters less to you than gay people getting married?
Do you think the president even controls whether gay people get married or women can get abortions? Those decisions are made by the courts by and large, abortion isn't going to change and gay marriage is inevitable. So your entire vote for the presidency resides on the possibility for a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand the philosophy. Actually, I do understand I think. Social issues are emotional issues, people are expressing blind moral indignation.
On October 05 2012 04:35 Defacer wrote: xDaunt, I'm curious ... while I'm sure that you're pleasantly surprised that Romney is back in the race, he did it by moving to the center, and in some cases, seemingly adopting in same policies and or principles of the Obama administration.
I know that you weren't a big Romney fan to begin with. But I'm wondering if Romney's flip makes you feel better or worse about him as a potential president.
Could you maybe specify what you mean when you say moving to the center? I'm having trouble remembering examples of this in the debate.
While I agree there are problems with how we break down economic vs. social issues, you gave some very bad examples. Whether or not I personally am allowed to be married or have access to abortion makes a way bigger difference to me than the debt to GDP ratio in the short-, medium- and long-run, yes. The parties even broadly agree on economic issues at this point, it's just that everyone in the GOP disagrees with everything Obama says because he said it.
I don't really understand why people who aren't gay would vote on a President just over the issue of gay marriage, but I can see it being more important than the economy to gay people who want to get married. Romney opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger (despite an Obama ad saying just the opposite) and that is actually the most popular stance on that. Obama is a little bit more pro-choice, but I don't really see that issue having too big of a role on the election.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4U7Ec_CMAAeqkk.jpg:large)
