Edit: @Blues: These sorts of tax changes will have a slight impact on the economy, both parties assume that receipts will increase as time goes on, so do government expenditures we already have promised to pay out, the difference is Republicans have a tendency to pretend it will grow enough to offset most of the tax cuts cost when it doesn't do that.
Slight reform of the code has a slight impact, but cutting rates has a big one. My point is that Romney assumes that he can grow receipts in bigger amounts and cut more discretionary spending.
Republicans have a tendency to ignore spending when they're talking about tax cuts bringing in more revenue to offset the "lost" revenue from lowering the rates. If they actually reigned in spending like they always say they will do then the growth would offset the "loss," but they never deliver on the spending. But I prefer to take a chance on Romney shocking the world and delivering on cutting spending than putting my faith on Obama's "What, me worry? We'll just tax the rich, yeah, it won't come near to covering the spending, but RICH RICH RICH" stance.
Meh, until treasury bonds start trading in consistently positive real yields, and markets show trepidation, (not ratings agencies, no respect for them after '08) I won't really care about the debt. Cutting spending is bad policy with unemployment hovering around 8%, I might be willing to talk about it once it gets around 7%, maybe in trade for more inflationary monetary policy.
Rate cuts have a big impact when its deficit financed, when paid for by closing loopholes its far, far, less significant. You make up some deadweight loss and have a less distorting tax policy but the overall tax burden is still similar in many ways.
I don't really understand your point about "lost" revenue, the money is not being collected by the government, it is not going to magically appear in their coffers, it is gone from their balance sheet. If you cut spending dollar for dollar to match tax increases you should get more growth in the economy as you shuffle money around in marginally more efficient ways. You might end up with more wealth and income inequality, shittier schools, and public services unless local and state governments increase taxes but you will have a bigger GDP when all is said and done unless other taxes go up an equal amount
Edit:
DeepElemBlues wrote:Romney's implication is that with Obama in charge these predictions are as worthwhile as the prediction that unemployment would quickly go down to around 6% if the stimulus was passed.
I don't know if you're going to stand by that criticism, but Obama made that prediction well before the economy bottomed out, it was based on another prediction about how bad the economy would get. It got worse than they thought it would, makes it harder to fix things.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
I suggest people watch this video, where Cenk Uygur describes how the American system got corrupt and how the wealthy did indeed screw over the middle class to take their money.
Capitalism doesn't work the way you think it does. High discrepancies in wealth like today lead to stagnation and boom/bust economies. Free market doesn't work like that. Even Romney said that at the debates. Of course he was acting like a total liberal at the debates, even more liberal than Obama on a lot of things.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
It's unimportant what % of total wealth in the world you control, what's important is that the total value of that wealth is growing.
To put it in simple terms, would you rather have $1 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $10 (you own 10% of all the wealth in the entire world)
Or would you rather have $5 worth of value in a world where there was a total of $100 (you now own 5% of the wealth in the entire world)
Poor is a make believe RELATIVE term.
A guy making 20K in the US is considered poor. He has a higher standard of living than 99.99% of people in human history ever has. THAT is what is important.
He has more utility wealth at his disposable than most emperors and kings in history did.
To use a classic analogy, stop worrying about how the pie is divided and start worrying about making a bigger pie. What's important is not the ratio of your pie slice to everyone else's, what's important is that if things run properly EVERYONE GETS MORE PIE.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
I suggest people watch this video, where Cenk Uygur describes how the American system got corrupt and how the wealthy did indeed screw over the middle class to take their money.
Capitalism doesn't work the way you think it does. High discrepancies in wealth like today lead to stagnation and boom/bust economies. Free market doesn't work like that. Even Romney said that at the debates. Of course he was acting like a total liberal at the debates, even more liberal than Obama on a lot of things.
I agree the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in business as well. These are also horrible market distortions. Corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts should go away as well, they retard the market. Sadly both parties are guilty of this crap.
Edit: @Blues: These sorts of tax changes will have a slight impact on the economy, both parties assume that receipts will increase as time goes on, so do government expenditures we already have promised to pay out, the difference is Republicans have a tendency to pretend it will grow enough to offset most of the tax cuts cost when it doesn't do that.
Slight reform of the code has a slight impact, but cutting rates has a big one. My point is that Romney assumes that he can grow receipts in bigger amounts and cut more discretionary spending.
Republicans have a tendency to ignore spending when they're talking about tax cuts bringing in more revenue to offset the "lost" revenue from lowering the rates. If they actually reigned in spending like they always say they will do then the growth would offset the "loss," but they never deliver on the spending. But I prefer to take a chance on Romney shocking the world and delivering on cutting spending than putting my faith on Obama's "What, me worry? We'll just tax the rich, yeah, it won't come near to covering the spending, but RICH RICH RICH" stance.
Meh, until treasury bonds start trading in consistently positive real yields, and markets show trepidation, (not ratings agencies, no respect for them after '08) I won't really care about the debt. Cutting spending is bad policy with unemployment hovering around 8%, I might be willing to talk about it once it gets around 7%, maybe in trade for more inflationary monetary policy.
Rate cuts have a big impact when its deficit financed, when paid for by closing loopholes its far, far, less significant. You make up some deadweight loss and have a less distorting tax policy but the overall tax burden is still similar in many ways.
I don't really understand your point about "lost" revenue, the money is not being collected by the government, it is not going to magically appear in their coffers, it is gone from their balance sheet. If you cut spending dollar for dollar to match tax increases you should get more growth in the economy as you shuffle money around in marginally more efficient ways. You might end up with more wealth and income inequality, shittier schools, and public services unless local and state governments increase taxes but you will have a bigger GDP when all is said and done unless other taxes go up an equal amount
DeepElemBlues wrote:Romney's implication is that with Obama in charge these predictions are as worthwhile as the prediction that unemployment would quickly go down to around 6% if the stimulus was passed.
I don't know if you're going to stand by that criticism, but Obama made that prediction well before the economy bottomed out, it was based on another prediction about how bad the economy would get. It got worse than they thought it would, makes it harder to fix things.
Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
On October 05 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote]
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.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
Yes, I'm sure we'll only have to knock it down by "a bit". The bottom line is that his plan, as it has been published, can't work for both of its core promises.
On October 05 2012 03:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] 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.
OK, if that's the way it works out then give his play a few tweaks. 20% is too much? Knock it down to 19%. Can't get a particular deduction removed? Knock it down a bit more.
I'm pretty sure 20% was chosen for its nice roundness - not because it is exactly the best number to use.
The guy has no concrete plans. At all. I've been saying this all along.
Should you need actual policy to become the president? Does it matter?
I'm actually not sure. Let's just say it's a lot easier to criticize SC2 for all it's faults and imbalances than actually design a better game.
What was Obama's detailed plan in '08? Hope and Change? What's his detailed plan now? Resurrect old bills that got voted down? How will that work?
Guess we can't vote for either then...
His detailed plan is right there on his website. It's amazing to me that some people have the never to put the Romney and Obama plans on equal footing when Obama's actually has the specifics that Romney refuses to include in his. And, by the way, your "old bills that got voted down" argument got completely debunked in this very thread when it was explained to you that the bills submitted by Republicans were in reality not Obama's plan at all.
According to the TPC, even with the assumptions they used as to what is on the table and off the table, there's more than enough loopholes to pay for the rate reductions. The TPC analysis specified that
in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.
There's plenty of money out there to make it work - it just needs to be structured in a way that doesn't benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Where on Obama's website is his detailed plan? Can you send me a link?
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
This is probably a good point. The guy has gotten a free pass most of his political career. The press has always been pretty tough on Presidents traditionally, both democrats and republicans. Clinton they grilled a ton, he just dealt with it well. The press has been his biggest cheerleader since he came on the national scene 6-8 years ago.
I don't know if you're going to stand by that criticism, but Obama made that prediction well before the economy bottomed out, it was based on another prediction about how bad the economy would get. It got worse than they thought it would, makes it harder to fix things.
Yeah, that's the excuse from the Obama team, and it's failed as an excuse because 1) it doesn't matter, he promised and failed, and 2) the excuse is an admission of incompetence, at such an important moment they fucked up and believed the wrong information.
Also, Cenk Uygur, rofl. That's all the response Cenk Uygur deserves.
I don't really understand your point about "lost" revenue, the money is not being collected by the government, it is not going to magically appear in their coffers, it is gone from their balance sheet. If you cut spending dollar for dollar to match tax increases you should get more growth in the economy as you shuffle money around in marginally more efficient ways. You might end up with more wealth and income inequality, shittier schools, and public services unless local and state governments increase taxes but you will have a bigger GDP when all is said and done unless other taxes go up an equal amount
I understand that lowering taxes = higher tax revenue is something that is hard to understand (it isn't), but facts are facts, and that's what happened during the Bush Administration. Record tax receipts year after year.
Schools and public services have stayed shitty after we've spent over ten trillion dollars on them in the last 40 years, arguments that cutting spending will make them worse has absolutely no impact on me and a lot of people. They could hardly be worse and spending more and more money hasn't improved them, the deterioration in quality has in fact happened during this period of increasing spending on them.
Capitalism doesn't work the way you think it does. High discrepancies in wealth like today lead to stagnation and boom/bust economies. Free market doesn't work like that. Even Romney said that at the debates. Of course he was acting like a total liberal at the debates, even more liberal than Obama on a lot of things.
Capitalism doesn't work the way you think it does. Income inequality does not lead to stagnation or boom/bust cycles. If Romney said that, he's wrong.
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
He didn't consider them because they vast majority of them were factually incorrect.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
It's unimportant that a small select few control the vast majority of the wealth? I'm pretty sure that is important to everyone, rich and poor alike.
A small select few have pretty much always controlled the vast majority of wealth, that's just normal.
In response to he post you quoted: The poorest people in America live out of fucking shopping carts and plastic bags. They do not have Hi-Def TVs, they beg on the streets. Don't fucking ignore them or brush them off as drug addicts, many of them are veterans and families who deserve better.
I have nothing against the wealthy, I just think that they should pay a couple percentage points more in taxes because of that marginal utility of money thing and our current economic climate, even then, I don't think they should start paying more right now.
Regulated capitalism creates a high standard of living, the poor zaqwert is talking about (people near the poverty line, not the truly destitute) rely on government handouts to maintain their standard of living. Unregulated capitalism creates disasters you would think were impossible, like burning rivers that were devoid of life long before they reached the point they were flammable.
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
He didn't consider them because they vast majority of them were factually incorrect.
Neither man said anything false last night, it's all a matter of interpretation, perspective, and the new fad of dressing up opinions as facts in order to "fact check" politicians. People don't seem to understand how bad they look when they whine how the other guy lied, lied, LIED, HE LIED!
Unregulated capitalism creates disasters you would think were impossible, like burning rivers that were devoid of life long before they reached the point they were flammable.
Are you sure you aren't talking about the USSR and China?
In response to he post you quoted: The poorest people in America live out of fucking shopping carts and plastic bags. They do not have Hi-Def TVs, they beg on the streets. Don't fucking ignore them or brush them off as drug addicts, many of them are veterans and families who deserve better.
So do the poorest people everywhere, including egalitarian paradises in Europe.
Except in places where there aren't shopping carts and plastic bags because the countries are too poor to even have those. Not coincidentally, these places lacking carts and bags are corrupt semi-command economies in sub-Saharan Africa.
Did anyone see this from ReasonTV? Just saw it on TheYoungTurks, as a rebuttal to the video from Samuel L Jackson. Brilliant video... (Warning: NSFW - Language)
The fact that you think actual poor people have Iphones make me question your thought process. Do people have iphones that shouldn't, yes. Many other poor people that you don't seem to imagine exist struggle to feed their children, struggle to pay rent, might live on the street, might need some extra help or otherwise they might actually starve. These people exist, sure there aren't 300 million of them, but they do exist.
20,000 is a very small amount of money for a family, it's decent if your single and live in a cheap place and you can live within your means and be ok(depending on where your living), but I don't really consider 20,000 to be a living wage.
If all were doing is comparing the world to England 500 years ago, instead of comparing to more modern times, like 15-20 years ago , 40-50 years ago.. looking at what happens when we raise taxes or lower taxes, when we regulate companies or deregulate companies, then fuck it, we can just let the country go to shit cause it doesn't matter, technology has come farther then it was in England
edited cause I thought you said Egypt.. whatever same difference
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
He didn't consider them because they vast majority of them were factually incorrect.
That's because he was too busy spouting off his incorrect facts.
On October 05 2012 06:46 Zaqwert wrote: Every politician always promises to do everything in vague terms
"I'll cut the deficit by X over Y years!"
"I'll reduce/increase A over B years!"
and none of them ever do it and both of these dudes are no different.
You say what you need to to get elected.
All things said and done, I'm voting Romney. Unbridled capitalism is definitely the way to go. Everyone is better off long term when the markets are free.
People look at billionaries and millionaries and get all pissed off and jealous, but who super rich a few get is unimportant if it improves the quality of life of everyone.
The poorest people in America have a higher standard of living than the King of England did 500 years ago.
Poor people have high def tvs, iphones, cars, all the food they could ever want, etc.
Capitalism creates a few super wealthy, but not at the expense of society, it's for its greater benefit. When the government gets into the business of "fairness" and redistributing wealth it's always bad long term. A few people at the very bottom get a temporary benefit to the detriment of most everyone else.
People need to get over looking at people at the top and thinking they got all that money by screwing you over. They got it by creating things, inventing things, providing goods and services to everyone's benefit, etc.
Both candidates kinda suck, but I believe Romney will provide a less regulated economy long term which will lead to greater prosperity of everyone long term.
I suggest people watch this video, where Cenk Uygur describes how the American system got corrupt and how the wealthy did indeed screw over the middle class to take their money.
Capitalism doesn't work the way you think it does. High discrepancies in wealth like today lead to stagnation and boom/bust economies. Free market doesn't work like that. Even Romney said that at the debates. Of course he was acting like a total liberal at the debates, even more liberal than Obama on a lot of things.
I agree the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in business as well. These are also horrible market distortions. Corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts should go away as well, they retard the market. Sadly both parties are guilty of this crap.
This is not picking winners and losers. This is wealth discrepancy.
Socialist policies work extremely well in several different areas (like healthcare and some utilities). Instead, we have this crony capitalist stuff with 'regulated monopolies,' because that's the only way to make it work at all in a capitalist system. Capitalism doesn't always work properly.
Capitalism is awesome. But capitalism works best when the government is involved. Government is supposed to have the public's interest in play, so they have different priorities. Government has an important role to play in capitalism. When you see government and businesses working together (in a not-crony-bullshit-way), that's when you see the pie grow.
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
This is probably a good point. The guy has gotten a free pass most of his political career. The press has always been pretty tough on Presidents traditionally, both democrats and republicans. Clinton they grilled a ton, he just dealt with it well. The press has been his biggest cheerleader since he came on the national scene 6-8 years ago.
Exactly.
Here, let me make another prediction for y'all that should cause some democratic sphincters to tighten. I've noticed that a lot of you are excited about Obama's prospects against Romney during the foreign policy debate. You may want to reconsider. You can bet that the ongoing foreign policy problems in the Middle East are going to be front and center during that debate. In particular, you can bet that Libya will be discussed at length. Now, I'm not sure how many of you are aware of how badly the Obama administration has fucked up with regards to Libya. Most of the press isn't really reporting on it (though Jon Stewart did a piece on it recently). However, you can bet that Romney will be ready to hammer Obama for it, and I'm going to predict now that Obama is going to be completely unprepared for the criticisms that Romney will bring to bear. Obama's approval rating on foreign policy is already declining. The foreign policy debate may be another disaster for him.
the term capitalist was invented by a commie. seriously though, sometimes you'd want a more refined paradigm than capitalism v. dirty commies. just sayin
On October 05 2012 07:05 xDaunt wrote: Here's one more thought on why Obama did poorly last night (it's not mine, so much as something that a lot of conservative commentators are pointing out). Obama has been dealing with a sycophantic press corp for so long that he has not really been confronted with his record at all in a way that would have prepared him to deal with what Romney did to him last night. He's had it so easy that he probably hasn't really had to consider many of the points that Romney raised last night.
This is probably a good point. The guy has gotten a free pass most of his political career. The press has always been pretty tough on Presidents traditionally, both democrats and republicans. Clinton they grilled a ton, he just dealt with it well. The press has been his biggest cheerleader since he came on the national scene 6-8 years ago.
Exactly.
Here, let me make another prediction for y'all that should cause some democratic sphincters to tighten. I've noticed that a lot of you are excited about Obama's prospects against Romney during the foreign policy debate. You may want to reconsider. You can bet that the ongoing foreign policy problems in the Middle East are going to be front and center during that debate. In particular, you can bet that Libya will be discussed at length. Now, I'm not sure how many of you are aware of how badly the Obama administration has fucked up with regards to Libya. Most of the press isn't really reporting on it (though Jon Stewart did a piece on it recently). However, you can bet that Romney will be ready to hammer Obama for it, and I'm going to predict now that Obama is going to be completely unprepared for the criticisms that Romney will bring to bear. Obama's approval rating on foreign policy is already declining. The foreign policy debate may be another disaster for him.
Yea, I mean it's way easier for Romney to be the attacker in the foreign policy debate. It's not like he's running on anything in particular. But he has four years of Obama to criticize.
I expect something pretty similar to this debate, but Romney essentially had nothing (dismissing his own plans out of hand) and spent the whole time attacking Obama for four years. I wouldn't even be surprised if Romney attacked Obama from the left like he did in this debate. Shrug.
EPT
