The irony is that Romney will blow the deficit wide open

[lawgator1]

The math does not work. The tax cuts he wants to make, plus the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, plus more defense spending far, far outweighs the savings from the loopholes he closes. The result is either a massively inflated deficit or higher taxes on the middle class.

Would think you so-called fiscal conservatives would be a bit more skeptical than you are, but I guess you only ask the hard questions about the other side's plan, right ?

 

[utvolpj]

link?

and how has the deficit been doing under our current Pres?

 

[volfanjustin]

Is the deficit still going to be cut in half by January?

 

[therealUT]

The math does not work. The tax cuts he wants to make, plus the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, plus more defense spending far, far outweighs the savings from the loopholes he closes. The result is either a massively inflated deficit or higher taxes on the middle class.

Would think you so-called fiscal conservatives would be a bit more skeptical than you are, but I guess you only ask the hard questions about the other side's plan, right ?

The math certainly works if one places any faith in classical economics. Romney is basing his plan on making production in America attractive; if businesses want to do business in America, they will be hiring Americans, and those Americans will be paying taxes. It is not a difficult, nor a novel, concept and, yet, the Tax Policy Center completely ignored any effects that lowering Corporate Income Taxes might have on the economy to arrive at their $5T revenue reduction number (over ten years, something Obama never mentioned).

A responsible report would have made multiple, well-reasoned and well-informed, assumptions about how jobs the policy could create; then, the report could provide multiple figures for multiple scenarios.

But, yeah, you are right. If Romney's plan does not attract a single business to come to America and set up shop, then deficits will be huge.

 

[FLVOL69]

Tax breaks equate to more revenue to the government. What we need are more taxpayers not higher taxes.Owebummer has run trillion dollar deducts every year know office. Epic failure.... so long barry..lol

 

[volinbham]

The math does not work. The tax cuts he wants to make, plus the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, plus more defense spending far, far outweighs the savings from the loopholes he closes. The result is either a massively inflated deficit or higher taxes on the middle class.

Would think you so-called fiscal conservatives would be a bit more skeptical than you are, but I guess you only ask the hard questions about the other side's plan, right ?

Mr. Talking Points strikes again.

Interesting that the POTUS's use of the Tax Policy Center analysis is that the same group revised their analysis and concluded (as Romney continually claims) there is no reason it requires raising taxes on the middle class. Obama continues to perpetuate the lie.

On the deficit - Romney laid out his principles; tax cuts will not raise the deficit. Will not raise tax burden of middle class. Will not lower tax burden of upper class. What is your evidence that his ultimate plan if elected will violate those guiding principles?

 

[volinbham]

The math certainly works if one places any faith in classical economics. Romney is basing his plan on making production in America attractive; if businesses want to do business in America, they will be hiring Americans, and those Americans will be paying taxes. It is not a difficult, nor a novel, concept and, yet, the Tax Policy Center completely ignored any effects that lowering Corporate Income Taxes might have on the economy to arrive at their $5T revenue reduction number (over ten years, something Obama never mentioned).

A responsible report would have made multiple, well-reasoned and well-informed, assumptions about how jobs the policy could create; then, the report could provide multiple figures for multiple scenarios.

But, yeah, you are right. If Romney's plan does not attract a single business to come to America and set up shop, then deficits will be huge.

My understanding is that TPC did a follow up analysis with differing results than the original that LG and Obama trot out repeatedly.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

link?

and how has the deficit been doing under our current Pres?

Why do you guys always blast people when they want to compare Obama and Bush, but you can't make one post discussing Romney on his own merit.

His plan will not balance the budget. Ever.

 

[volinbham]

Why do you guys always blast people when they want to compare Obama and Bush, but you can't make one post discussing Romney on his own merit.

His plan will not balance the budget. Ever.

Haven't you been comparing Obama to Bush for 2 pages in the debate thread?

Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney will balance the budget.

To LGs point - where is the evidence other than repeating Team Obama's talking points?

 

[lawgator1]

The math certainly works if one places any faith in classical economics. Romney is basing his plan on making production in America attractive; if businesses want to do business in America, they will be hiring Americans, and those Americans will be paying taxes. It is not a difficult, nor a novel, concept and, yet, the Tax Policy Center completely ignored any effects that lowering Corporate Income Taxes might have on the economy to arrive at their $5T revenue reduction number (over ten years, something Obama never mentioned).

A responsible report would have made multiple, well-reasoned and well-informed, assumptions about how jobs the policy could create; then, the report could provide multiple figures for multiple scenarios.

But, yeah, you are right. If Romney's plan does not attract a single business to come to America and set up shop, then deficits will be huge.

I don't, do you?

Corporations and the wealthy are sitting on more investment money right now than at any time in history. Have been for awhile.

Why will giving them tax relief so that have more investment dollars available change anything?

It won't. Because the problem is not dollars to invest, its lack of demand to make the investment worthwhile.

The solution to our economic woes is demand side, not supply side. This slavish adherence to trickle down by the wealthy is not surprising, since it benefits them. I think what is going on now in this country is that enough people are seeing through that charade that it might just not work.

Obama needs to chart this out for the undecideds. He needs to explain just how much investment capital is sitting on the sidelines, and how Romney wants to put even more into the pockets of those not spending as is. Then, he needs to explain that the answer is more spending by the middle class, to drive up demand, and get some more balance to this economy.

 

[PaulieWalnuts]

Haven't you been comparing Obama to Bush for 2 pages in the debate thread?

Absolutely. I have also been getting hammered for it by the same people that can't discuss Romney for 1/2 a second without mentioning President Obama.

Romney has a plan. Let's discuss it.

 

[McDad]

The math does not work. The tax cuts he wants to make, plus the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, plus more defense spending far, far outweighs the savings from the loopholes he closes. The result is either a massively inflated deficit or higher taxes on the middle class.

Would think you so-called fiscal conservatives would be a bit more skeptical than you are, but I guess you only ask the hard questions about the other side's plan, right ?

Since Obama extended those tax cuts, can we refer to those as the the Obama tax cuts from this point forward?

I totally agree that our spending is out of control. I am hoping some restraint can be found in the congress because that is where bills for spending originate (assuming Romney doesn't use an executive order to override legislation previously defeated in the house).

I am skeptical about Romney. However, the skepticism I have for the unknown with Romney is less worrisome than the concern I have for the known with Obama.

 

[BigPapaVol]

until we understand what the loophole closures look like, this is all meaningless conjecture. Effective corporate taxes could / and should rise tremendously. Moreover, it gets rid of an enormous frictional expense industry in the tax advisory arena.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Why do you guys always blast people when they want to compare Obama and Bush, but you can't make one post discussing Romney on his own merit.

His plan will not balance the budget. Ever.

yet you have some idea about someone who has a plan that will?

 

[lawgator1]

until we understand what the loophole closures look like, this is all meaningless conjecture. Effective corporate taxes could / and should rise tremendously. Moreover, it gets rid of an enormous frictional expense industry in the tax advisory arena.

You saying he hasn't released sufficient detail for you to make a judgment on whether his proposal will in fact be revenue neutral?

 

[utvolpj]

Why do you guys always blast people when they want to compare Obama and Bush, but you can't make one post discussing Romney on his own merit.

His plan will not balance the budget. Ever.

I have discussed it many times. LG and Obama are using a previous version of the report. It has been modified and many have shown it can actually do what Romney says it will. If there is new data I would be happy to read it.

the true irony is a person blasting a plan that supposedly will "blow the deficit wide open" while still casting a second vote for Obama. Only one has shown to truly favor blowing open the deficit

 

[volinbham]

I don't, do you?

Corporations and the wealthy are sitting on more investment money right now than at any time in history. Have been for awhile.

Why will giving them tax relief so that have more investment dollars available change anything?

It won't. Because the problem is not dollars to invest, its lack of demand to make the investment worthwhile.

The solution to our economic woes is demand side, not supply side. This slavish adherence to trickle down by the wealthy is not surprising, since it benefits them. I think what is going on now in this country is that enough people are seeing through that charade that it might just not work.

Obama needs to chart this out for the undecideds. He needs to explain just how much investment capital is sitting on the sidelines, and how Romney wants to put even more into the pockets of those not spending as is. Then, he needs to explain that the answer is more spending by the middle class, to drive up demand, and get some more balance to this economy.

If your demand side premise is solid how on earth does investing in schools, green energy, etc. (all supply side investments) change the demand side? Both have the same basic approach with middle class taxes.

Romney had it right - Obama is advocating trickle down government. I'll take supply side on the people's side vs supply side on the government's side every day of the week.

 

[lawgator1]

I have discussed it many times. LG and Obama are using a previous version of the report. It has been modified and many have shown it can actually do what Romney says it will. If there is new data I would be happy to read it.

the true irony is a person blasting a plan that supposedly will "blow the deficit wide open" while still casting a second vote for Obama. Only one has shown to truly favor blowing open the deficit

First, the modified report does not say it will work. It reiterates that it is not revenue neutral.

Second, Romney hung his electoral hat on this plan last night and swore up and won that it is revenue neutral. That is not true.

On the other hand, Obama has to stand there and explain why the deficit is where it is. You might not like the answer, but at least he gives an honest account of where it is.

It may make Obama look like Debbie Downer up there, but at least he isn't in make it all up in your head, the math be damned, fantasy land.

 

[volinbham]

First, the modified report does not say it will work. It reiterates that it is not revenue neutral.

Second, Romney hung his electoral hat on this plan last night and swore up and won that it is revenue neutral. That is not true.

On the other hand, Obama has to stand there and explain why the deficit is where it is. You might not like the answer, but at least he gives an honest account of where it is.

It may make Obama look like Debbie Downer up there, but at least he isn't in make it all up in your head, the math be damned, fantasy land.

Romney said it WILL BE revenue neutral. Why can't you accept that the final details will be constrained by this guiding principle.

OTOH Obama is raising taxes - no way that is a demand stimulator - absolutely no way. He's using it for supply side investments which you continually tell us are ineffective

 

[BeecherVol]

First, the modified report does not say it will work. It reiterates that it is not revenue neutral.

Second, Romney hung his electoral hat on this plan last night and swore up and won that it is revenue neutral. That is not true.

On the other hand, Obama has to stand there and explain why the deficit is where it is. You might not like the answer, but at least he gives an honest account of where it is.

It may make Obama look like Debbie Downer up there, but at least he isn't in make it all up in your head, the math be damned, fantasy land.

Debbie Downer?

After what he ran on 4 years ago?

Hope and Change?
Cutting the Deficit in Half?
UE never getting above 8%?

Obama's honest account is that none of this is on him.

 

[lawgator1]

If your demand side premise is solid how on earth does investing in schools, green energy, etc. (all supply side investments) change the demand side? Both have the same basic approach with middle class taxes.

Romney had it right - Obama is advocating trickle down government. I'll take supply side on the people's side vs supply side on the government's side every day of the week.

First, I agree that a lot of that investment you list does not help. Alternative energy will become economically viable long term when fossil fuels are expensive enough that the balance changes. I have great faith in private sector technology and investment to get us there, the government doesn't need to be in that, at least not significantly (exception is I think university research is worthwhile government effort).

Second, the key in my mind remains a combination of infrastructure projects and tax cuts for the middle class. The former more long term, the latter shorter term. And to be revenue neutral cut all federal programs by 10 percent, including the military, end the wars, and eliminate the Bush tax cuts on those making over a million a year.

 

[tim]

Debbie Downer?

After what he ran on 4 years ago?

Hope and Change?
Cutting the Deficit in Half?
UE never getting above 8%?

Obama's honest account is that none of this is on him.

His creation of 5mm jobs is a farse also. Also, the jobs he has created are of the low income variety.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You saying he hasn't released sufficient detail for you to make a judgment on whether his proposal will in fact be revenue neutral?

yes and I can assimilate the information far better than you can. The hacks you keep linking don't have enough to make a pronouncement either way, so they default to absurd assumptions to support a goofy worldview.

If he's serious about eliminating the deficit, his policies can work, but he'll have to hammer some loopholes and hammer some corporate taxation loopholes, including wiping out previously issued tax credits. I'm not against the policy, but stocks will take a lick for it. In my mind, that's fine because all of the QE rounds have overblown the market to ridiculous proportions.

 

[utvolpj]

First, the modified report does not say it will work. It reiterates that it is not revenue neutral.

I said many have shown it can be, not that the TPC said it

Second, Romney hung his electoral hat on this plan last night and swore up and won that it is revenue neutral. That is not true.

no one has any clue whether it will truly be or not. But there are studies showing it absolutely can. You hang your hat on one

On the other hand, Obama has to stand there and explain why the deficit is where it is. You might not like the answer, but at least he gives an honest account of where it is.

It may make Obama look like Debbie Downer up there, but at least he isn't in make it all up in your head, the math be damned, fantasy land.

so he gets credit for owning up to running up debt we can't ever pay back? Big man and clearly needs a 2nd term

 

[lawgator1]

Romney said it WILL BE revenue neutral. Why can't you accept that the final details will be constrained by this guiding principle.

OTOH Obama is raising taxes - no way that is a demand stimulator - absolutely no way. He's using it for supply side investments which you continually tell us are ineffective

I can't believe that the man perhaps most skeptical on this board of pledges to cut government spending, by either party, is willing to accept a broad strokes proposal like this that does not add up and just hope that somehow they figure out a way to make it work.