Romney vs. Obama

[luke warm]

Nate has the President winning the states, Jimmy

ok, i misread you... i was going by the univ of colorado @ boulder study... heard him yesterday talking about it

[mike777]

283-254 For the President.

 

Nate gives Romney a tiny lead in Virg, Nc, Fla and Col.

 

Ohio still looking good for the President.

[PassedOut]

I suspect that there will be resistance to eliminating any of the deductions and exemptions that taxpayers enjoy today. Yet even if Romney eliminates 100% of the deductions currently available, that will not in itself pay for a 20% across the board tax cut.

compute that again, this time w/ the economy growing @ 3% rather than 1.3%... then try it @ 4%, up to 6% or so

Ending Deductions Pays for 4% Tax Cuts, Congress Study Says

 

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Repealing all itemized deductions in the U.S. tax code would pay for only a 4 percent cut in income tax rates, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress that casts doubt on Republicans’ ability to finance lower income-tax rates with base broadening.

 

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows the arithmetical difficulty of an approach that assumes long-favored tax breaks such as deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions could be repealed instantly and completely. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent income-tax cut and says he would pay for it by limiting tax deductions, credits and exemptions.

Arithmetic.

[cherdano]

I can close the deficit by passing a law that mandates a 5% growth rate.

[luke warm]

I can close the deficit by passing a law that mandates a 5% growth rate.

yeah, well at least you seem to understand the issue... passed out types "arithmetic" as if it's the same regardless of growth

[PassedOut]

passed out types "arithmetic" as if it's the same regardless of growth

Reagan did not believe in arithmetic either and reversed decades of fiscal responsibility. Naturally the deficits and the debt ballooned.

 

Clinton did believe in arithmetic and left office with a budget surplus.

 

GW Bush did not believe in arithmetic and left office with a budget deficit of well over $1 trillion, which Obama has only been able to trim slightly so far. But it is going in the right direction again.

 

You do the math.

[mike777]

Reagan did not believe in arithmetic either and reversed decades of fiscal responsibility. Naturally the deficits and the debt ballooned.

 

Clinton did believe in arithmetic and left office with a budget surplus.

 

GW Bush did not believe in arithmetic and left office with a budget deficit of well over $1 trillion, which Obama has only been able to trim slightly so far. But it is going in the right direction again.

 

You do the math.

 

 

to be fair Reagan was involved in a war, cold war with true evil and bush in a world wide war but you make good points.

 

Perhaps in hindsight Bush should have asked for a war tax.

 

 

 

If the President made the argument I am the world leader involved in a global war, a war where Americans are being attacked and killed and costs a lot of money.....that would be a good point.

 

If he thinks it is best to raise taxes to pay for it or help pay for it, fair point.

[kenberg]

 

Perhaps in hindsight Bush should have asked for a war tax.

 

In any sight, Bush should have asked for a repeal of his tax cuts. The argument for the cuts was that the government was taking in more money than it knew what to do with. There were, even at the beginning, some suggestions that the well was not as deep as advertised, but certainly lots of cash was flowing in. 9/11 changed all that. He had the entire country behind him and if he had said that the attack had to be dealt with, it will cost money, the tax cuts would have to go, no one except maybe Grover Norquist would have disagreed. Wars virtually never are as simple as planned, a thought we should keep in mind before we go bomb Iran, and the simple precaution of restoring the revenue base to what it was before he took office would have helped immensely.

 

Every president, before taking office, should be required to read old proclamations about how easy and cheap this or that war will be. The troops will be home by Christmas. We can have guns and butter. We can fight the war on poverty and the war in Viet Nam. How many times do we have to keep making the same ***** mistake?

[mike777]

The argument for the cuts was that the government was taking in more money than it knew what to do with. There were, even at the beginning, some suggestions that the well was not as deep as advertised, but certainly lots of cash was

 

 

Ken that was not the argument at the time and you should know that

 

 

The argument was there was a huge shock to the system and taxes should not be raised when consumers are afraid to spend, there was a huge drop in demand.... ahuge increase in fear/uncertainty... that was the argument

 

 

He had the entire country behind him and if he had said that the attack had to be dealt with, it will cost money

 

 

that was the other side....

 

-------------------

 

 

 

btw you explained the sine law and how it works and why it is important better than my HS teacher ever did.

[PassedOut]

to be fair Reagan was involved in a war, cold war with true evil and bush in a world wide war but you make good points.

 

Perhaps in hindsight Bush should have asked for a war tax.

To be even more fair: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were involved in that same cold war. Beyond that, Truman and Eisenhower were involved in a hot war in Korea. Johnson and Nixon were involved in a hot war in Vietnam. Nevertheless, every one of those administrations reduced the national debt as a percent of GDP -- until Reagan.

[mike777]

To be even more fair: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were involved in that same cold war. Beyond that, Truman and Eisenhower were involved in a hot war in Korea. Johnson and Nixon were involved in a hot war in Vietnam. Nevertheless, every one of those administrations reduced the national debt as a percent of GDP -- until Reagan.

 

 

yes and who did better....that is how we judge, in retrospect.

 

 

but you make a very valid point.

 

I did not know Reagan increased the debt in terms of GDP beyond say the first year...

 

Iknow Reagan made a huge mistake in delaying the tax cuts.

 

no wonder I am not a deficit hawk

[Winstonm]

in my opinion, the most stupid position to take is the one-size-fits-all ideology, i.e., the answer is always less government and lower taxes. History (reality) has shown that reducing taxes helps when tax rates are so high as to be restrictive to growth, and increasing tax rates can help when revenue is needed to stimulate government spending.

 

if anything, reagan helped crystallize the reality that tax cuts do not necessarily self-fund by way of increasing the tax base - the rich can also hoard capital, taking it out of circulation, something that never occurs with the classes that consume nearly 100% of monthly income.

 

it simply makes no sense intuitively or historically to believe cutting taxes to the most wealthy will produce increased production. it will only do so when it is to the benefit of the wealthy to invest in production; when it is not, that money will be deposited in treasuries and the like.

 

great idea there - cut taxes so the money released can be borrowed back at interest.

[kenberg]

The argument for the cuts was that the government was taking in more money than it knew what to do with. There were, even at the beginning, some suggestions that the well was not as deep as advertised, but certainly lots of cash was

 

 

Ken that was not the argument at the time and you should know that

 

I confess that I had forgotten that there were two tax cut bills, 2001 and 2003. I was thinking of 2001, before the September attack. Of course governments can always find something to do with money, but I recall some serious discussion that paying down the debt too rapidly could be bad for the economy. The argument was made that since there was now a (for the moment) yearly surplus, the money could and should be returned to the people. Or so I recall. Anyway, my point was that however good an idea it might have been to cut taxes before the attack, after the attack it would have been a really good idea to realize that the response would cost money. Whether we are speaking of Johnson in Viet Nam or Bush in Afghanistan/Iraq, presidents seem unwilling to seriously confront the economic cost of going to war. And I think historians would say that this is not just an American blind spot.

 

 

 

I also am not fond of the argument, made by both liberals and conservatives, that we need to find ways to get people to spend more money. I understand that total credit card debt in the US has decreased dramatically. Since I have long been stunned by what I see as totally irresponsible use of credit cards, it's difficult for me to see this return to sanity as something that needs fixing.

[hrothgar]

Good piece in the Daily Beast from David Stockman discussing Romney as a "job creator"

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

[luke warm]

right now i'm leaning R to win the general at 52% - 48% with about 320+ electoral votes... if PA and MI somehow squeak by for obama, then romney will only get around 284 or so... final prediction in 2 weeks

[PassedOut]

right now i'm leaning R to win the general at 52% - 48% with about 320+ electoral votes... if PA and MI somehow squeak by for obama, then romney will only get around 284 or so... final prediction in 2 weeks

If Obama does not debate well tomorrow, Romney has a chance for sure. Romney won't take Michigan though -- he grew up here. Nor Massachusetts -- he was governor there. But Obama will take Hawaii and Illinois -- the voters in those states know Obama well.

[luke warm]

If Obama does not debate well tomorrow, Romney has a chance for sure. Romney won't take Michigan though -- he grew up here. Nor Massachusetts -- he was governor there. But Obama will take Hawaii and Illinois -- the voters in those states know Obama well.

i look at it a little differently... if O doesn't stop the bleeding, it's a landslide loss for him... R has made up about 8 points with women, about 3 or 4 with both hispanics and blacks... hawaii and illinois are 2 of the most liberal states in america, along with massachusetts... it's absolutely no surprise when they go democratic... i can't remember the last time they didn't, in a nat'l election... i think you might be giving michigan to obama a little quick, though

[billw55]

i look at it a little differently... if O doesn't stop the bleeding, it's a landslide loss for him... R has made up about 8 points with women, about 3 or 4 with both hispanics and blacks... hawaii and illinois are 2 of the most liberal states in america, along with massachusetts... it's absolutely no surprise when they go democratic... i can't remember the last time they didn't, in a nat'l election... i think you might be giving michigan to obama a little quick, though

You are one optimistic repub! A landslide loss for Obama, lmao.

 

I have said from the start, maintained, and still say, Obama will win comfortably.

[hrothgar]

 

I did not know Reagan increased the debt in terms of GDP beyond say the first year...

 

I know Reagan made a huge mistake in delaying the tax cuts.

 

 

This is why its pointless to try to engage in discussions about economic issues with you

 

1. The fact that the the Federal debt increased all through Reagan's term in office is well known.

2. Reagan had massive tax cuts at the start of his term in office. He then reversed course and started raising taxes once again. I don't see how you can claim that he "delayed" his tax cuts without resorting to the use of a time machine

 

http://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/zfacts-reagan-bush-national-debt1.gif

[lalldonn]

right now i'm leaning R to win the general at 52% - 48% with about 320+ electoral votes... if PA and MI somehow squeak by for obama, then romney will only get around 284 or so... final prediction in 2 weeks

Have you been making large bets? You must think you could make a killing as Obama is the favorite everywhere I can find that is accepting bets.

[kenberg]

Here are some topics that I predict will arise tonight.:

 

Economy: It has not gone the way we hoped it would. OK, the past is past. What are the plans and expectations for the future?

 

The Middle East:: What is the role of the US? For two specifics, Syria seems to be heading toward (or achieved) chaos, Iran is heading toward a bomb. We should do what?

 

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid: There really are issues of affordability. We should address this how?

 

Taxes and the debt: We will get the debt under control how?

 

No doubt there will be other issues, but it's hard to see these not arising. The candidates will be judged on whether they duck these issues or give answers that will stand up under scrutiny.

[Vampyr]

The candidates will be judged on whether they duck these issues or give answers that will stand up under scrutiny.

 

I cannot figure out whether this statement was made in all seriousness.

[billw55]

I cannot figure out whether this statement was made in all seriousness.

I think he meant for himself :)

[kenberg]

I cannot figure out whether this statement was made in all seriousness.

 

You are suggesting naivety on my part? You must be one of those nattering nabobs of negativism Spiro warned us about. :)

 

I suppose it might be a tad optimistic.

[ArtK78]

You are suggesting naivety on my part? You must be one of those nattering nabobs of negativism Spiro warned us about. :)

 

I suppose it might be a tad optimistic.

Ken: Your reference to the esteemed Spiro T. Agnew will be lost on most denizens of these Fora. While it pains me to do the math, it has been over 39 years since Agnew resigned as Richard M. Nixon's vice-president.

 

Don't forget to consider other such classic Agnewisms as "pusillanimous pussyfooters" or "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history" or the ever-popular "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

 

We, of the silent majority, salute you!