The irony is that Romney will blow the deficit wide open

[lawgator1]

I am not sure it is humanly possible to be worse on the deficit than Obama.

Romney might not be able to get it to where I would be satisfied on the deficit, but Obama sure as hell can't. At this point, I am not sure whether he is willfully ignorant, willfully trying to make it worse, or truly doesn't give a damn about the deficit.

Ummmmm ..... You do remember his $4 trillion grand bargain with Boehner, right ? The one that Cantor lit on fire ?

 

[therealUT]

Ummmmm ..... You do remember his $4 trillion grand bargain with Boehner, right ? The one that Cantor lit on fire ?

The plan that was merely going to reduce annual deficits, as opposed to eliminating annual deficits, yet was "sold" (unsuccessfully) as a debt reducing plan?

While I am against a Balanced Budget Amendment, because there are emergencies that might require spending extra in one year or two years, I am against a ten year plan that in the best year of the plan still leaves our government incurring a $300B deficit.

Hell, even if we grant Obama that $4T would have been cut, due to interest payments on our debt, the actual cut would have merely been around $2.5T by the end of FY2020 (in other words, we would still be dealing with over $13T in debt).

This is why entitlements need to significantly overhauled; medicare and medicaid need to be significantly overhauled; education needs to be significantly overhauled; defense needs to be significantly overhauled.

The system is unsustainable and that means that drastic measures need to be taken. Does this mean that promises that have been made to the American people must be broken? Yes. Is that unjust? Yes. It is bad; they are promises the government ought not to have ever made; the breaking of the promises ought to invited skepticism from the populous with regard to future promises this government makes.

That being said, if I make a promise to you that I will murder x and I break that promise, then I am committed an injustice toward you. You might have made plans that relied on me murdering x (maybe you were going to inherit and you jump the gun and take out a big loan). Ought you refrain from or be more cautious in accepting my promises in the future? Of course.

 

[Carl Pickens]

The deficit will never be reduced by simply raising taxes when you have 1 in 6 on food stamps, 1 in 15 on disability and etc.
Put the welfare recipients to work on civil projects like cleaning roadside trash, fence rows and etc. in order to continue receiving benefits.....

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ummmmm ..... You do remember his $4 trillion grand bargain with Boehner, right ? The one that Cantor lit on fire ?

Neither side was serious about that offer in my opinion.

 

[utvolpj]

another study being used by the Obama campaign is not true. I'm sure LG has the email and can show us

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard

I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

- Princeton professor Harvey Rosen

 

[lawgator1]

another study being used by the Obama campaign is not true. I'm sure LG has the email and can show us

Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan | The Weekly Standard



- Princeton professor Harvey Rosen

The title of the article does not match the professor's comments. Moreover, the professor is saying it doesn't have to result in increased taxes on the middle class -- but it may.

The reason it may is that, as described so far, it is not revenue neutral. Romney simply insists it will be and he got away with that in the debate, even though he has not released a plan that would support that conclusion.

Obama should have pressed the issue, but did not, and that in my opinion is a key reason he lost the debate.

 

[utvolpj]

The title of the article does not match the professor's comments. Moreover, the professor is saying it doesn't have to result in increased taxes on the middle class -- but it may.

The reason it may is that, as described so far, it is not revenue neutral. Romney simply insists it will be and he got away with that in the debate, even though he has not released a plan that would support that conclusion.

Obama should have pressed the issue, but did not, and that in my opinion is a key reason he lost the debate.

I'm sorry, did you read the same thing I quoted?

The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

if the Obama campaign is using it to prove they are correct then it is a lie. Maybe you can post the email so we can check

 

[lawgator1]

I'm sorry, did you read the same thing I quoted?



if the Obama campaign is using it to prove they are correct then it is a lie. Maybe you can post the email so we can check

I am beginning to really worry about your basic reading comprehension skills. Of course it is plausible to close enough loop holes and eliminate enough deductions to reach the number necessary to make the spending increase in defense and the other tax cuts revenue neutral.

But you need to study what might be included in those changes in order to meet that number. That is what Romney is unwilling to discuss, and that is what the president and the press need to be boring in on.

Its great Romney can proclaim that he is going to reduce everybody's taxes and spend more on defense. That makes everybody feel great and of course like him more. But he won't tell us how he is going to do it. I am very suspicious..

There is simply too much secrecy with Romney, too much sleight of hand. He won't release his tax returns, he is making huge promises and the details he releases don't get him to where he needs to be. He has a substantial, proven track record of saying whatever he needs to say to win, he'll turn and pivot on policy at the drop of a dime.

 

[Arclight]

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 ?

And the DNC Fax Machine clacks on...............

 

[utvolpj]

I am beginning to really worry about your basic reading comprehension skills. Of course it is plausible to close enough loop holes and eliminate enough deductions to reach the number necessary to make the spending increase in defense and the other tax cuts revenue neutral.

But you need to study what might be included in those changes in order to meet that number. That is what Romney is unwilling to discuss, and that is what the president and the press need to be boring in on.

Its great Romney can proclaim that he is going to reduce everybody's taxes and spend more on defense. That makes everybody feel great and of course like him more. But he won't tell us how he is going to do it. I am very suspicious..

There is simply too much secrecy with Romney, too much sleight of hand. He won't release his tax returns, he is making huge promises and the details he releases don't get him to where he needs to be. He has a substantial, proven track record of saying whatever he needs to say to win, he'll turn and pivot on policy at the drop of a dime.

I assure you my reading skills are superior to your economic skills

the Obama campaign is trotting this study out to say it absolutely won't work. The man who wrote the study says that's not true and that "under plausible assumptions" if can be done.

you don't like it but it can happen. He does need to get more specific but even $5tril over 10yrs is half of what Obama is currently doing

 

[SWIL]

No amount of defense spending or tax cuts for anyone could ever amount to the steamy pile of Obama fail like the stimulus package.

The Dems pulled a David Copperfield and made $800 billion tax dollars vanish overnight.

 

[lawgator1]

No amount of defense spending or tax cuts for anyone could ever amount to the steamy pile of Obama fail like the stimulus package.

The Dems pulled a David Copperfield and made $800 billion tax dollars vanish overnight.

Nothing compared to the trillions upon trillions that Romney will either add to the deficit or tax upon the middle class.

But the wealthy will be okay, and that's what counts.

 

[MG1968]

Nothing compared to the trillions upon trillions that Romney will either add to the deficit or tax upon the middle class.

But the wealthy will be okay, and that's what counts.

what tax on the middle class? Obama and his minions have been lying through their teeth about this mythical tax increase but haven't produced a shred of evidence to back it up

 

[utvolpj]

Nothing compared to the trillions upon trillions that Romney will either add to the deficit or tax upon the middle class.

that is so incredibly ridiculous. How much has been added to the debt over Obama's 4 years?

Even if Romney's plan adds the amount reported his 10 years still come in under Obama's 4 years.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Nothing compared to the trillions upon trillions that Romney will either add to the deficit or tax upon the middle class.

But the wealthy will be okay, and that's what counts.

So you're telling me the trillions that Obama has spent have resulted in decreasing the number of poor people?

 

[Gramps]

No amount of defense spending or tax cuts for anyone could ever amount to the steamy pile of Obama fail like the stimulus package.

The Dems pulled a David Copperfield and made $800 billion tax dollars vanish overnight.

You can add GW Bush to the list also.
He added 4.9 trillion dollars to the debt.
We owed 5.7 trillion when Bush took office.

Bush 2 and Obama = 10 trillion in debt.

 

[Vol423]

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.

You really are clueless.

 

[2ironVol]

The deficit will never be reduced by simply raising taxes when you have 1 in 6 on food stamps, 1 in 15 on disability and etc.
Put the welfare recipients to work on civil projects like cleaning roadside trash, fence rows and etc. in order to continue receiving benefits.....

Those jobs are already being done by inmates.

Put the welfare recipients to work on civil projects???:birgits_giggle:

 

[Vol423]

Lowering the taxes does not always produce the results the GOP says it does. With the Bush 2 tax cuts, the US debt increased 4.9 trillion dollars during his term in office.

The US debt has gone up 10 trillion dollars during Bush/ Obama.

Yes, I'm sure it was those darn tax cuts and not the recession after 9/11 and the 2 wars being waged overseas.

 

[lawgator1]

Yes, I'm sure it was those darn tax cuts and not the recession after 9/11 and the 2 wars being waged overseas.

Actually, you hit on some truth here. You did leave out the deregulated banking and finance community run amok, however.

 

[Vol423]

Actually, you hit on some truth here. You did leave out the deregulated banking and finance community run amok, however.

Yes, I did. I figured that you didn't want to discuss how Bill Clinton signed off on the deregulation of the banking and finance industry.

 

[Gramps]

Yes, I'm sure it was those darn tax cuts and not the recession after 9/11 and the 2 wars being waged overseas.

I think it was the combination of that large a tax cut and waging the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq along with the war on terror. Add to that the Medicare prescription drug benefit and a republican congress spending money like flaming liberals for 6 of Bushes 8 years.

Common sense teaches you cannot cut revenue and add expenses at the same time.

Where are all the jobs the Bush tax cuts created ?

 

[gasguy98]

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 ?

And if its and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry christmas. Hypothesize whatever you want but the FACT is thet the CURRENT PRES has increased the deficit more than anyone else ever.

 

[gasguy98]

I think it was the combination of that large a tax cut and waging the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq along with the war on terror. Add to that the Medicare prescription drug benefit and a republican congress spending money like flaming liberals for 6 of Bushes 8 years.

Common sense teaches you cannot cut revenue and add expenses at the same time.

Where are all the jobs the Bush tax cuts created ?

They were destroyed when the economy tanked due to the real estate collapse. You know, the feds insisting that everyone can own a home, regardless of income.

 

[tim]

You can add GW Bush to the list also.
He added 4.9 trillion dollars to the debt.
We owed 5.7 trillion when Bush took office.

Bush 2 and Obama = 10 trillion in debt.

Bush isnt running.