logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> First Presidential Debate, What impact will it have?
Who do you think won the First Debate?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 24
Guests cannot vote 
Amlord
post Oct 4 2012, 03:17 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Last night was the first of three Presidential Debates.

Mitt Romney vastly outperformed expectations while President Obama was criticized even by his most stalwart water carriers.

The consensus I got from watching the cable shows is that the pundits didn't think Obama had ever been challenged in the way that Romney did in questioning his record of achievement. This is usually why the challenger wins the first Presidential debate, so the conventional wisdom goes.

What moments from the debate were most memorable?

Will Romney see a bump?

How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?

This post has been edited by Amlord: Oct 4 2012, 09:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Eeyore
post Oct 6 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #41


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What moments from the debate were most memorable?


That Romney consistently displayed competence in delivering a core message that was uncomfortable to the Democratic candidate.

Will Romney see a bump?


Most definitely, especially if he can translate that into momentum while on the campaign trail.
How can Obama do things differently for the second debate?

Demonstrate competence and listen to basic advice. Have a clear message and deliver it. The republican playbook is 30 years old now. no surprises. Don;t llok like the kid who forgot his presentation project.

America doesn't like wordy. Stop doing wordy, especially when you aren't saying anything.

Still stumped Mr. President? Just take former president Clinton's speech and statistics and plagiarize the hell out of it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 6 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #42


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 06:05 PM) *
...
... If Congress can't administratively do what Romney wants, then it is administratively infeasible - a fact and not merely an opinion. And if they can't make those assumptions and have to work with numbers that don't make those assumptions, then it is mathematically impossible.

You do realize that the above reasoning therefore renders Obama's proposals "mathematically impossible", as well? After all, they too rely on the next Congress's (the precise composition of which will not be known until after November 6) ability to "administratively do" the administrative voodoo that Congresses do so ... cough ... well.

Right?

ps:
For those here who are too young (and/or whatever) to be familiar with the "do ... voodoo ... do so well" cultural reference above, ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MZvqnjMlRA

smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 7 2012, 01:47 AM
Post #43


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Eeyore @ Oct 6 2012, 03:46 PM) *
What moments from the debate were most memorable?

That Romney consistently displayed competence in delivering a core message

I guess competence means he got over with the public and the media blathering class. You could apply that to all sorts of historical rascals.

And just what was his core message other than we have a persistent unemployment problem that only I can rescue you from with my magical math and sheer presence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 9 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #44


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 6 2012, 07:42 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 06:05 PM) *
...
... If Congress can't administratively do what Romney wants, then it is administratively infeasible - a fact and not merely an opinion. And if they can't make those assumptions and have to work with numbers that don't make those assumptions, then it is mathematically impossible.

You do realize that the above reasoning therefore renders Obama's proposals "mathematically impossible", as well? After all, they too rely on the next Congress's (the precise composition of which will not be known until after November 6) ability to "administratively do" the administrative voodoo that Congresses do so ... cough ... well.

Right?

Does Obama's proposal require violation of a Congressional rule in order to make that proposal law? If so, how?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 9 2012, 01:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 9 2012, 02:33 PM
Post #45


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Will Romney see a bump?

A bump has shown up in the polls. Trouble is, Republicans have spent a lot of energy discounting polls, so now what? Suddenly they've become reliable? The conspiracy has been broken and order restored?

It'll be interesting how this is spun from here. Probably the best strategy would be to not talk too much about it, but I don't think the Romney campaign will be able to resist. Too much juice in there.

Meanwhile, more debates to come before the votes actually get tallied. I do think the uncertainty about what Romney would actually do in office will become a bigger thing as people cast their votes, which is happening right now in some areas. Go for a known quantity or a risky venture?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 9 2012, 04:02 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 9 2012, 08:31 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 6 2012, 07:42 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 6 2012, 06:05 PM) *
...
... If Congress can't administratively do what Romney wants, then it is administratively infeasible - a fact and not merely an opinion. And if they can't make those assumptions and have to work with numbers that don't make those assumptions, then it is mathematically impossible.

You do realize that the above reasoning therefore renders Obama's proposals "mathematically impossible", as well? After all, they too rely on the next Congress's (the precise composition of which will not be known until after November 6) ability to "administratively do" the administrative voodoo that Congresses do so ... cough ... well.

Right?

Does Obama's proposal require violation of a Congressional rule in order to make that proposal law? If so, how?

Not raising taxes will create economic growth. The trouble is figuring out how much, which is why the CBO shies away from estimating it.

We all know that raising taxes would be bad for economic growth, yet Obama is promoting them. His VP even proudly said recently that they intend to raise taxes by $1 trillion.

The "rule" in question is the guideline that they use, but it doesn't represent reality. CBO rules are quite...eccentric...at times. This is one of those times.

An argument that "well, our official assumptions don't account for economic growth" simply is not grounded in reality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 9 2012, 05:05 PM
Post #47


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 9 2012, 12:02 PM) *
We all know that raising taxes would be bad for economic growth, yet Obama is promoting them.


Do we all know that? Really? What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?

QUOTE
The "rule" in question is the guideline that they use, but it doesn't represent reality.
Easy to say... but how does it not represent reality, exactly? Why is this "one of those times" that the rule is eccentric and unrealistic?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 10 2012, 01:12 PM
Post #48


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 9 2012, 01:05 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 9 2012, 12:02 PM) *
We all know that raising taxes would be bad for economic growth, yet Obama is promoting them.


Do we all know that? Really? What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?


Keynesians think that deficit spending is the cure to economic downturns. Does deficit spending mean collecting more taxes or would collecting less taxes help with deficit spending?

Interestingly, the article you cite contrasts raising taxes on higher income earners with running higher deficits. It finds that the deficits are WORSE than raising taxes on the wealthy.

QUOTE
The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.


Kinda shoots a hole in the Keynesian approach, doesn't it?

QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 9 2012, 01:05 PM) *
QUOTE
The "rule" in question is the guideline that they use, but it doesn't represent reality.
Easy to say... but how does it not represent reality, exactly? Why is this "one of those times" that the rule is eccentric and unrealistic?


It is always unrealistic. Changes to tax policy do affect economic growth. However, we don't understand how and we can't quantify it very well. So the government leaves it out. When I said "one of these times" I really meant "one of these rules". CBO analyses are done a certain way. The consistency they use helps to evaluate proposals under similar assumptions. However, they are frequently wrong and are constantly revising their analyses because even though their methodology is useful for comparing proposals, it doesn't represent reality.

If Romney proposed raising all tax rates to 75%, for example, the CBO would simply calculate the increase in revenue. It would ignore the fact that such a move would cause widespread tax avoidance, income hiding and perhaps flight from the country.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 10 2012, 04:50 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



Ahhh, so Obama can throw out any number he wants, with no specifics or details, and if not countered with extensive specifics then Obama wins the point? No wonder you can't see where Romney won anything.

QUOTE
Are the viewers not expected to bring anything to the table?


Not really. In a debate, no assumptions of level of knowledge of the audience, or the judges, should be made. So, the debate should be judged solely on what is presented. If one side says something that isn't correct or needs to be countered, it is up to the other side to point that out, otherwise the point stands.

Even outside of the debate construct, how much does the typical voter really know about things? Comedians constantly have skits showing the level of ignorance of basic affairs the public has. When Clinton was running in the primaries, it was a running joke how he would say one thing to one audience, and then later in the same day say exactly the opposite thing to a different audience. That hardly hurt him. People judge debates based on what they hear during it, and whether or not it resonates with what they want to hear. Evidence brought up later, or even previously, probably isn't considered much, if at all, by most viewers.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Oct 10 2012, 05:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 10 2012, 05:29 PM
Post #50


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 10 2012, 09:50 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



Ahhh, so Obama can throw out any number he wants, with no specifics or details

On this matter of explaining where he is going to make up the 5 trillion from his 20% tax drop Romney is on the docket. He offers essentially nothing. That tells me he is just playing lying politics. But of course it worked.
.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Are the viewers not expected to bring anything to the table?


Not really. In a debate, no assumptions of level of knowledge of the audience, or the judges, should be made. So, the debate should be judged solely on what is presented.

There is a time factor when you are trying to lay out your policies and the other side is constantly lying. When Romney says the world is flat and 2+2=3 I like to think there is a public that can catch him on that. Well I was wrong.

QUOTE
People judge debates based on what they hear during it, and whether or not it resonates with what they want to hear. Evidence brought up later probably isn't considered much, if at all, by most viewers.

Yeah drastically lowering taxes while balancing the budget is what folks want to hear. It worked for Reagan and we got the appropriate deficit results even with his subsequent tax raises. And you can double down with GWB. Frankly though I'm more worried about Romney in the foreign affairs department. War, war and more war. He makes me feel sober and sophisticated. us.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 10 2012, 05:42 PM
Post #51


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 10 2012, 01:29 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Oct 10 2012, 09:50 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 6 2012, 11:26 AM) *
From CG link:
QUOTE
he’s also going to be closing loopholes and deductions.


Which loopholes and deductions and how much subtraction from the 5 trillion does that amount to?

No specifics no deal. My point stands. flowers.gif



Ahhh, so Obama can throw out any number he wants, with no specifics or details

On this matter of explaining where he is going to make up the 5 trillion from his 20% tax drop Romney is on the docket. He offers essentially nothing. That tells me he is just playing lying politics. But of course it worked.

Repeat after me: the cake the $5 Trillion is a lie. It doesn't exist. Romney has no intention of lowering tax revenues by $5 trillion. He wants to restructure the tax code by lowering rates and limiting deductions, while keeping revenues the same. He feels (as I do) that this will spur economic growth, which will actually increase receipts to the Treasury.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 10 2012, 06:03 PM
Post #52


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 10 2012, 10:42 AM) *
Repeat after me: the cake the $5 Trillion is a lie. It doesn't exist.

Obviously like others getting zapped with Romney's mantra carries more weight than economic realities. There were moments there when Romney reminded me of a Moony trying to flip a potential convert(Also known as "snapping"). His ability to sell 2+2=3 was superb. It's like a major portion of the nation now needs an intervention to get back to some semblance of reality. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 10 2012, 07:23 PM
Post #53


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 10 2012, 02:03 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 10 2012, 10:42 AM) *
Repeat after me: the cake the $5 Trillion is a lie. It doesn't exist.

Obviously like others getting zapped with Romney's mantra carries more weight than economic realities. There were moments there when Romney reminded me of a Moony trying to flip a potential convert(Also known as "snapping"). His ability to sell 2+2=3 was superb. It's like a major portion of the nation now needs an intervention to get back to some semblance of reality. laugh.gif

Again, the $5 trillion number was an extrapolation of the Obama campaign. The campaign has even admitted as much.

QUOTE
Burnett: But then when you close deductions it's not going to be anywhere near $5 trillion, that's our analysis.

Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated. It won't be near $5 trillion but it's also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he's going to close. So it is going to cost someone and it's going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren't enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney's policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it's just simple math.

Burnett: Okay, they'll just say that you can do that. They're are other studies. I know the one to which you're referring, but there's also the possibility of economic growth.

Cutter: Prove it. Erin, prove it.

Burnett: We can't prove either side, that's all I'm saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Oct 10 2012, 08:41 PM
Post #54


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,330
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 10 2012, 12:29 PM) *
On this matter of explaining where he is going to make up the 5 trillion from his 20% tax drop Romney is on the docket. He offers essentially nothing. That tells me he is just playing lying politics. But of course it worked.


But Obama offered no specifics on where that number came from to begin with...so there seems to be a strong double standard being applied here. You may have had those specifics in your mind, but they certainly weren't brought up in the debate, hence the 'scoring' going the way it did.

QUOTE
There is a time factor when you are trying to lay out your policies and the other side is constantly lying. When Romney says the world is flat and 2+2=3 I like to think there is a public that can catch him on that. Well I was wrong.


I actually wish you weren't. It would change politics for the better. Politicians, of all ilks, generally know and rely on our inability to think much past talking points. In essence, doing that IS politics.

As for the time factor, that is certainly something to consider when debating. How to get your points across as strongly as possible in the time available. Romney's repitition of his key points was effective. Obama didn't do that, so he didn't appear as strong during the debate.

QUOTE
Yeah drastically lowering taxes while balancing the budget is what folks want to hear. It worked for Reagan and we got the appropriate deficit results even with his subsequent tax raises. And you can double down with GWB. Frankly though I'm more worried about Romney in the foreign affairs department. War, war and more war. He makes me feel sober and sophisticated. us.gif


Not sure why GWB keeps being brought up....Romney has NO connection with him. Spin from the Dem side that shouldn't work, but does. Lowering taxes? Obama did too (and kept the Bush tax cuts) so I guess Obama doubled down with GWB himself. Puts it in a different perspective, no?

I don't think Romney would be a hawk at all. He might be talking tough now, but foreign policy doesn't change much regardless of who is President. But there certainly isn't much on Romney's side to claim it as a strong suit, at least as far as his experience. But then Obama didn't really either. The next debate, on foreign policy, should be pretty interesting, and informative. I suspect Romney will do much the same as he did in the first debate: have a set of points he wants to make, and keep reitereating them at every turn. So, Obama needs to be prepared for that. There is certainly reason to have concerns about Obama's foreign policy, which Romney will play up no doubt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 10 2012, 09:56 PM
Post #55


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Romney is hiring Bush advisors right and left and his economic philosophy is roughly the same. As for the roughly 5 trillion dollar deficit plan we'll sandwich that in with a whole bunch of other flip flops and lies he offered up at the debate. You specify cuts and don't specify how you will pay for them then you have to own the whole package. I know some folks buy Romney's airie fairie promises to find a bunch of substitute sources of revenues. I want specifics. You can buy a pig in a poke.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/...-in-38-minutes/

QUOTE
2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.


And just to double down.

QUOTE
The $5 trillion figure comes from the fact that Romney has proposed to cut tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years

But Romney also has said he will make his plan “revenue neutral” by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions, although he has not provided the details.

Which loopholes and which deductions? Sorry dude, you can run but you can't hide. Until we get the details it's 5 trillion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 11 2012, 02:29 PM
Post #56


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 10 2012, 09:12 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 9 2012, 01:05 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 9 2012, 12:02 PM) *
We all know that raising taxes would be bad for economic growth, yet Obama is promoting them.


Do we all know that? Really? What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?


Keynesians think that deficit spending is the cure to economic downturns. Does deficit spending mean collecting more taxes or would collecting less taxes help with deficit spending?

Interestingly, the article you cite contrasts raising taxes on higher income earners with running higher deficits. It finds that the deficits are WORSE than raising taxes on the wealthy.

QUOTE
The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.


Kinda shoots a hole in the Keynesian approach, doesn't it?

Would you like me to ask the question another way... or can you actually answer it as asked. What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy? As it stands, you've not provided a counter to anything cited in the article, but just claim that the results of the studies - based on observations of reality - don't match Keynesian theory... to which I respond: Yeah... so?

QUOTE
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 9 2012, 01:05 PM) *
QUOTE
The "rule" in question is the guideline that they use, but it doesn't represent reality.
Easy to say... but how does it not represent reality, exactly? Why is this "one of those times" that the rule is eccentric and unrealistic?


It is always unrealistic. Changes to tax policy do affect economic growth. However, we don't understand how and we can't quantify it very well. So the government leaves it out. When I said "one of these times" I really meant "one of these rules". CBO analyses are done a certain way. The consistency they use helps to evaluate proposals under similar assumptions. However, they are frequently wrong and are constantly revising their analyses because even though their methodology is useful for comparing proposals, it doesn't represent reality.

Is there something in your response that is supposed to lead me to believe that leaving out economic growth is a bad thing? If so, I'm not seeing it... nor do I see anything that would lead me to believe that this makes Romney's proposal any more feasible than I previously stated.

QUOTE
Repeat after me: the cake the $5 Trillion is a lie.

Thank you for the Portal reference. smile.gif ... Coincidentally enough, I just got done playing that game for the first time yesterday - which is why it probably made me smile more than most.

Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion loss in tax revenue - that is correct. His proposal to counter all the lost tax revenue that occurs as a result of lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and deductions is just not going to work... it falls short. And, so long as he doesn't specify what loopholes and deductions, there's no guarantee that he will get any of that lost revenue back... so, it may very well end up being $5 trillion in lost revenue. How is it reasonable to say that his proposal is revenue neutral if there are no figures to support the other side of it?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 11 2012, 02:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Oct 11 2012, 04:06 PM
Post #57


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2012, 09:29 AM) *
Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion loss in tax revenue - that is correct. His proposal to counter all the lost tax revenue that occurs as a result of lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and deductions is just not going to work... it falls short. And, so long as he doesn't specify what loopholes and deductions, there's no guarantee that he will get any of that lost revenue back... so, it may very well end up being $5 trillion in lost revenue. How is it reasonable to say that his proposal is revenue neutral if there are no figures to support the other side of it?

I do believe we have forgotten the additional 12 million tax payers that his plan purportedly will add to the tax roles. I don't think I have ever heard that the tax cuts would be fully paid for by lowering deductions. Just wanted to make sure we were not leaving out facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Oct 11 2012, 04:34 PM
Post #58


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2012, 12:06 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2012, 09:29 AM) *
Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion loss in tax revenue - that is correct. His proposal to counter all the lost tax revenue that occurs as a result of lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and deductions is just not going to work... it falls short. And, so long as he doesn't specify what loopholes and deductions, there's no guarantee that he will get any of that lost revenue back... so, it may very well end up being $5 trillion in lost revenue. How is it reasonable to say that his proposal is revenue neutral if there are no figures to support the other side of it?

I do believe we have forgotten the additional 12 million tax payers that his plan purportedly will add to the tax roles. I don't think I have ever heard that the tax cuts would be fully paid for by lowering deductions. Just wanted to make sure we were not leaving out facts.

Unless those 12 million don't collect unemployment, they are already on the tax rolls.

He didn't say it would be fully paid for by lowering deductions as I mentioned earlier - forgive my shorthand; he said the amount left over after closing loopholes and limiting deductions would be made up for by economic growth... something else he can't quantify and that Congress will not take into consideration when it comes to considering whether or not his proposal will add to the deficit. His plan is just glaringly empty words at this point... nothing to back it up whatsoever.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Oct 11 2012, 04:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 11 2012, 06:15 PM
Post #59


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2012, 10:29 AM) *
QUOTE
Kinda shoots a hole in the Keynesian approach, doesn't it?

Would you like me to ask the question another way... or can you actually answer it as asked. What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy? As it stands, you've not provided a counter to anything cited in the article, but just claim that the results of the studies - based on observations of reality - don't match Keynesian theory... to which I respond: Yeah... so?


It depends on how you define "rich". Is "rich" the $250,000 per year mark that is often trotted out?

What we are in is two differing priorities: balancing the budget and growing the economy. Balancing the budget involves increasing taxes (thus, reducing disposable income for individuals and small business owners) or reducing government spending (which also reduces available income to businesses).

Growing the economy involves getting more economic activity which is accomplished by having more money in the hands of those that will spend it.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that the "rich" have the most means to hide income. They can more easily divert their income to future years. They can hide behind various deductions. They can hire accountants to find loopholes and tax shelters. Lowering the rates makes them feel better about the amounts they pay and removing deductions eliminates some of the tax avoidance strategies that they can use.

If money is lying around idle, then yes raising taxes on this type of income would not affect economic growth since it isn't in the economy anyway. But nobody has their money sitting idle in a saving account. Rich people invest. They spend.

The study itself says that it contradicts earlier studies on the matter. So which study is right? Which "experts" should we believe?

Politicians, even liberal politicians, all agree that raising taxes in a slow economy is a bad move.

QUOTE
"Well first of all he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have, instead, cut taxes" Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd when Todd presented a question from a viewer named Scott who asked, "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy any?"

Obama then added, "What I have to say to Scott is his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession....we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposal that have come out of Congress, which by the way were different than the proposals I put forward, still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over. So he's absolutely right. The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession."



QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2012, 10:29 AM) *
Is there something in your response that is supposed to lead me to believe that leaving out economic growth is a bad thing? If so, I'm not seeing it... nor do I see anything that would lead me to believe that this makes Romney's proposal any more feasible than I previously stated.


Raising tax rates doesn't raise the revenues that are expected. Why do you think that tax rates were once 75, 80, even 90%? The government never collected 75 or 80 or 90 percent of "rich" people's incomes. They just kept pushing up nominal rates in the hopes of collecting more. The truth is that the "rich" will pay a certain percentage and then they resist with all of their considerable powers the handing over of more.


QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2012, 10:29 AM) *
Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion loss in tax revenue - that is correct. His proposal to counter all the lost tax revenue that occurs as a result of lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and deductions is just not going to work... it falls short. And, so long as he doesn't specify what loopholes and deductions, there's no guarantee that he will get any of that lost revenue back... so, it may very well end up being $5 trillion in lost revenue. How is it reasonable to say that his proposal is revenue neutral if there are no figures to support the other side of it?


The reduction of rates doesn't result in the reduction of revenues. It never does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Oct 11 2012, 06:39 PM
Post #60


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,424
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



What proof is there that raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans will negatively impact the economy?

What proof is there that raising the taxes of anyone will negatively impact the economy? Would raising your taxes impact you? How about if the poorest had their taxes had their taxes raised? Prove that is a bad thing. Oh where, oh where is the proof?

Raising someone's taxes always hurts them. It is always negative. Some people may agree to pay more but that would be a rare bird. Most people do not care if someone else has to pay more. Some want to raise other people's taxes, "It does not hurt me, could help me, so I am for it."

Is it not obvious that having money taken from you without your consent is a bad thing, a negative thing? Is it not obvious that people who have money taken from them do not have that money available to invest for productive means?

It is a common theme in the United States to vote so you can get free stuff or at least get it on the cheap. Make someone else pay for it. As long as someone else, in this case a wealthier person, is the one being gored it is not a negative impact.

Taxes should be fair and low. Arbitrary and high are not fair nor good and such means of applying taxes are negatively impacting the economy. It is common sense to recognize this to be true. Arbitrary taxes can benefit some at the expense of others. Because some benefit does not mean the overall result is good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 15th, 2018 - 01:16 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.