|
|
On October 17 2012 16:00 paralleluniverse wrote:
Romney keeps repeating throughout the debate that he knows how to create jobs.
But this is just empty rhetoric. It's vague, it's not specific, and he's done or said absolutely nothing that would suggest that he knows how to create jobs.
If Romney really knew how to create jobs, then he would say how to create jobs, not that he knows how to create jobs. Tell us something.
It's exactly like when McCain just kept saying that he knew how to get Bin Laden. If McCain really knew how to get Bin Laden, why the fuck didn't he tell us all?
Because it's a bull shit line. What do you expect from them? If either of them say "Time for a New Public Works Program," deficit hawks and conservatives would be up in arms about spending more. Add to that people saying government can't create jobs and any line actually stating how they would do it would be dead on arrival. So, they simply say they'll create jobs or stimulate the economy or solve x problem because it sounds better than saying nothing.
The name of the game is vague and non-specific in modern day politics... unless you've got an actual good answer (note: few ever do). Specifics means your opponent can study them and criticize them and pound on why something wont work until they're blue in the face. With no specifics they have nothing to attack but the broad idea you propose... which then just becomes a case of he-said-she-said bologna. It's stupid, but it's not about to change this election... that's for damn sure.
|
On October 17 2012 15:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 14:20 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 17 2012 14:07 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2012 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 14:01 Defacer wrote:
Obama not only owned the Libya attacks, he owned it with authority and looked presidential doing so. And when Candy brought up that Hilary took responsibility for the State Department's lack of security, Obama doubled-down, praised Hilary and basically wouldn't allow her to throw herself under the bus. word. that was the right move. Romney looked thrown when he was like "and I think the president just said the buck stops at his desk" and Obama is sitting in the back nodding all serious and shit. good moment for him [Nodding] "That's right. I'm the motherfucking president." Let's face it, Obama has done nothing about jobs in the last four years. And now he wants us to give him a chance to fulfill his promises? Not gonna happen. Would you like him to take the 5 million jobs that were created back? Also, Romney adamantly stated that the government doesn't create jobs. So why would you need a president at all?
To be fair, Republicans advocate smaller government so that there is less interference with free market capitalism. Therefore, Romney would want to be president so he can get government "out of the way".
Whether Mitt Romney or any other modern Republican live up to their stated goals of small government, however, is another question.
|
Romney denies in the debate that he calls the wind energy jobs "imaginary".
But here's what he said in a op-ed:
In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed. His promise of 5 million green jobs vanished as fast as the $500 million he gave to his campaign donors at now-bankrupt Solyndra. His goal of 1 million electric cars went up in flames alongside the Chevy Volt batteries that prompted a recall of all 8,000 sold so far. Source: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/03/05/u-s--can-be-energy-superpower.html
|
On October 17 2012 16:28 paralleluniverse wrote:Romney denies in the debate that he calls the wind energy jobs "imaginary". But here's what he said in a op-ed:
Huh?
It's painfully obvious he's not calling them imaginary jobs... Did Obama seriously try to call him out on this?
|
This needs repeating given that Romney once again claims that he will not lower taxes on the rich and will somehow lower taxes on the middle class:
I've already called Romney's sudden and new claim that he will not reduce taxes on the rich adding another constraint to an already impossible math problem. But it seems that the Washington Post has an even simpler and easier way to explain it: Show nested quote +[Romney says]:
“Well, I’ve made it pretty clear that my principles are, number one, simplify the code; number two, create incentives for small businesses and large businesses to grow; number three, don’t reduce the burden on high income taxpayers; and number four, remove the burden somewhat from middle income people.”
[...]
For some people, Romney says he’ll keep taxes the same. For everyone else, he’ll lower them.
I’ll repeat that just to make sure everyone gets it. Some have the same taxes; some have less. I’ll even put Romney’s pledge in equation form, for those mathematically inclined:
0 + (-X) = 0, where X > 0
That simply can’t work. Romney can’t do what he says and yet keep revenues the same. The full article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romneys-tax-mythology-made-simple/2012/10/10/6f09c24a-1306-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_blog.html
|
Yes, I wasnt really sure if he just misspoke or what for his tax plan. If you have the rich paying the same and everybody else paying less, you wont have a revenue neutral plan. Unless that is what the alleged growth is supposed to counteract? I dunno, seemed strange during the debate in the least.
|
|
|
trust him, he worked in the private sector
|
Do you know that Ken Rogoff is also a chess grandmaster? He recently drew world n°1 Magnus Carlsen, which is quite amazing for an amateur.
Good article, although I am always a little bit skeptical with his anti-debt mantra.
|
On October 17 2012 17:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, I wasnt really sure if he just misspoke or what for his tax plan. If you have the rich paying the same and everybody else paying less, you wont have a revenue neutral plan. Unless that is what the alleged growth is supposed to counteract? I dunno, seemed strange during the debate in the least.
Yes, there's actually a few things to note here.
The Rosen study which uses high growth effects due to tax cuts claims that Romney's plan adds up. But Rosen ignores the fact that Romney wants to eliminate the estate tax and still requires taxes to increase on those having around 100k-200k income, which Romney redefines as not the middle class, in order to keep his promise. The growth effects will also presumably be smaller than Rosen's estimate because Romney will increase taxes by $5T to offset a $5T tax cut. So despite Rosen's growth assumptions taxes still need to go up on the middle class for Romney's plan to work.
Now, in today's debate, Romney was asked what he would do as president if it turned out that his planned didn't add up. To which he replied that it will add up, because he will work with congress to find $5T of deductions to offset his $5T tax plan. Does anyone seriously think that anyone can work with congress to cut $5T of deductions?
In addition, it would be impossible for Romney's plan to add up, if it was scored by the CBO, because government accounting does NOT allow for Romney to take into account growth effects due to tax cuts, which Rosen used.
|
On October 17 2012 17:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 17:16 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes, I wasnt really sure if he just misspoke or what for his tax plan. If you have the rich paying the same and everybody else paying less, you wont have a revenue neutral plan. Unless that is what the alleged growth is supposed to counteract? I dunno, seemed strange during the debate in the least. Yes, there's actually a few things to note here. The Rosen study which uses high growth effects due to tax cuts claims that Romney's plan adds up. But Rosen ignores the fact that Romney wants to eliminate the estate tax and still requires taxes to increase on those having around 100k-200k income, which it redefines as not the middle class. The growth effects will also presumably be smaller than Rosen's estimate because Romney will increase taxes by $5T to offset a $5T tax cut. So despite Rosen's growth assumptions taxes still need to go up on the middle class for Romney's plan to work. Now, in today's debate, Romney was asked what he would do as president if it turned out that his planned didn't add up. To which he replied that it will add up, because he will work with congress to find $5T of deductions to offset his $5T tax plan. Does anyone seriously think that anyone can work with congress to cut $5T of deductions? In addition, it would be impossible for Romney's plan to add up, if it was scored by the CBO, because government accounting does NOT allow for Romney to take into account growth effects due to tax cuts, which Rosen used.
That surprised me. I was expecting a much more diplomatic, moderate, MATURE response ... like "Our goals are to lower the tax burden on the middle class, but in principle we have to be revenue netural." You know, something ambiguous.
Instead he became extremely defensive, by insisting "IT DOES ADD UP!!!" and rattling off his resume. He was obviously already rattled at that point.
|
As I've been saying for a long time, Romney's "six studies" are all partisan pieces, a few even from his own advisers, and they're all wrong:
In response to the persistent and substantial questions about the math of his tax plan not adding up, Mitt Romney and his campaign frequently argue that six independent studies back him up by ratifying the arithmetic of the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. But the talking point about the talking point is unraveling. More and more mainstream outlets are pointing out that they fail to validate its soundness. And on Sunday Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie was challenged on Fox News by Chris Wallace, who questioned whether the studies are really nonpartisan. “Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs. Some of them are from the AEI [American Enterprise Institute], which is hardly an independent group,” Wallace said. “One of them is from a guy who is — a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.” “These are very credible sources,” Gillespie said. Of the six studies, two are blog posts by the conservative American Enterprise Institute; one is a report by the Republican-friendly Heritage Foundation; one is a paper by Princeton professor and former George W. Bush adviser Harvey Rosen; the fifth and sixth are a Wall Street Journal op-ed and blog post by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, an adviser to the Romney campaign. In addition, not all the studies appear to reach the same conclusion as Romney. He contends they show that it’s possible to lower tax rates across the board by 20 percent and avoid adding to the deficit by unwinding deductions and credits for high incomes. That’s not the case. Feldstein, for instance, concludes that the numbers add up if effective taxes rise on incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, even though Romney has ruled that out. Rosen, for his part, makes the math work by omitting part of the revenue losses and assuming huge economic growth effects from tax reform. Months ago, Romney’s proposal was called into question by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which found that even under friendly assumptions, there aren’t enough loopholes in the tax code for incomes above $200,000 to make up for his nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts. In other words, the plan would either force the middle class to pay more or increase the deficit. The other studies that Romney cites — the two blog posts by AEI and the report by Heritage — question the contours of the TPC paper or posit different revenue baselines. Neither of them comprehensively illustrate how the GOP nominee’s math might add up. Source: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/romney-challenged-on-six-studies-validating-tax-plan.php?ref=fpa
|
Romney claims that Obama will put the US on the road to Greece.
The debt to GDP for the US is 104.1% and for Greece it's 165.3%.
But as you can see from the graph below, the UK and Japan have historically had debt to GDP ratios of 200% to 250% without turning into Greece.
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p02.png)
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/_Z_3bgQQpLBE/TL_tYYSpP6I/AAAAAAAAAE4/6_NAPKhXUmg/s400/debt-gdp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u121/images/2012/japanese-debt-gdp-1980-2010.jpg)
Note that all countries have increased debt over the last few years as a result of the global financial crisis.
The problem with Greece is that it has always been a screwed up economy with unemployment hovering around 7% to 13% throughout the decade before their current crisis, with high amounts of tax avoidance. But most importantly it doesn't have it's own central bank.
Being an advanced economy with it's own independent central bank, the US, like the UK and Japan is immune to a liquidity crisis, and will not turn into Greece.
If investors truly fear the US will turn into Greece why are they lending money to the US, UK and Japanese governments at remarkably low interest rates. Negative real interest rates for the US.
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=bTK)
This graph shows that the debt is a long run issue, as borrowing costs are at record lows. Since it's a long run issue, a permanent tax cut which Romney proposes is a bad idea. The unemployment problem is a short run issue, that will cause long run damage if left unaddressed. There's no need to address the debt issue now, although there's no reason why government can't decide on spending cuts and tax increases now, which will be implemented after the economy has recovered. But there's no urgency for immediate cuts, because cutting government spending will damage the economic recovery. In the long run, the debt should be reduced, in the short run, it needs to be increased.
|
paralleluniverse truly deserves some kind of award for his contributions to this thread. They're always clear, factual and accurate analyses.
|
On October 17 2012 17:19 sam!zdat wrote:
trust him, he worked in the private sector
He really crushed himself by picking a career politician for a running mate. He can't even push his "business experience is 100% of what you need to make jobs" as much as he'd like because Ryan has pretty much only done politics (still can't get over someone citing Ayn Rand as making you want to go into public service, what a joke).
|
On October 17 2012 22:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 17:19 sam!zdat wrote:
trust him, he worked in the private sector He really crushed himself by picking a career politician for a running mate. He can't even push his "business experience is 100% of what you need to make jobs" as much as he'd like because Ryan has pretty much only done politics (still can't get over someone citing Ayn Rand as making you want to go into public service, what a joke).
No, Ryan was a good pick. It solidified Romney's conservative voting base.
|
On October 17 2012 22:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 22:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2012 17:19 sam!zdat wrote:
trust him, he worked in the private sector He really crushed himself by picking a career politician for a running mate. He can't even push his "business experience is 100% of what you need to make jobs" as much as he'd like because Ryan has pretty much only done politics (still can't get over someone citing Ayn Rand as making you want to go into public service, what a joke). No, Ryan was a good pick. It solidified Romney's conservative voting base.
needing a more conservative conservative in order to get conservative voters to vote for you against the liberal communist obama says a lot about a campaign.
|
On October 17 2012 22:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 22:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2012 17:19 sam!zdat wrote:
trust him, he worked in the private sector He really crushed himself by picking a career politician for a running mate. He can't even push his "business experience is 100% of what you need to make jobs" as much as he'd like because Ryan has pretty much only done politics (still can't get over someone citing Ayn Rand as making you want to go into public service, what a joke). No, Ryan was a good pick. It solidified Romney's conservative voting base.
And alienated people who are not complete extremists.
Same than Palin in 2008. Nobody wants a far-right vice president except for the tea party folks. And especially not the moderates.
|
On October 17 2012 15:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 14:20 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 17 2012 14:07 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2012 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 14:01 Defacer wrote:
Obama not only owned the Libya attacks, he owned it with authority and looked presidential doing so. And when Candy brought up that Hilary took responsibility for the State Department's lack of security, Obama doubled-down, praised Hilary and basically wouldn't allow her to throw herself under the bus. word. that was the right move. Romney looked thrown when he was like "and I think the president just said the buck stops at his desk" and Obama is sitting in the back nodding all serious and shit. good moment for him [Nodding] "That's right. I'm the motherfucking president." Let's face it, Obama has done nothing about jobs in the last four years. And now he wants us to give him a chance to fulfill his promises? Not gonna happen. Would you like him to take the 5 million jobs that were created back? Also, Romney adamantly stated that the government doesn't create jobs. So why would you need a president at all?
We didn't start at x and end up at x+5,000,000 under Obama. That 5 million jobs figure doesn't take into account all the jobs that were lost.
|
On October 17 2012 22:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 22:33 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 22:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2012 17:19 sam!zdat wrote:
trust him, he worked in the private sector He really crushed himself by picking a career politician for a running mate. He can't even push his "business experience is 100% of what you need to make jobs" as much as he'd like because Ryan has pretty much only done politics (still can't get over someone citing Ayn Rand as making you want to go into public service, what a joke). No, Ryan was a good pick. It solidified Romney's conservative voting base. And alienated people who are not complete extremists. Same than Palin in 2008. Nobody wants a far-right vice president except for the tea party folks. And especially not the moderates.
Except unlike Palin, Ryan actually knows his stuff and can debate, and debate well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
