[vcassano1]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

American Exceptionalism? WTF?

Romney doesn't even have a concrete, laid out economic plan.

[Bombadil]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

What are you saying? Putting the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the majority is a good thing?

[Omegasquash]

what's the point of allowing people and even corporations to earn so much money if your society is not benefiting from their 'productivity'?

Human greed.

[ElectricBlue187]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

Moving services to the states would just make state taxes higher, how would that benefit anyone, at all?

[coldvein]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

wat

[GungHo]

Actually he is not in touch with reality. So yeah, he is not in touch with me.

What is his reality and who will be voting for him?

[Alchemy]

What are you saying? Putting the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the majority is a good thing?

Communist! ARREST THIS MAN!

[Gr1mLock]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

[Izayoi]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

American Exceptionalism? Are... are you trolling us?

If not, are you part of Romney's campaign staff by any chance?

[Opiate]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective.

Can you explain what this means? There is nothing precise or specific here. "American Exceptionalism" is not a philosophy espousing the exceptional nature of the individual, but the exceptional nature of the country of America as a whole.

You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area.

I'm asking for your specific preferences, not a general understanding of economics. I'm in school for economics right now.

Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending.

So larger deficits are okay? That's an honest question -- because that appears to be what you're endorsing.

The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama.

Okay, so you'd prefer these services be taken away from the federal government and given to the state government? Let's set aside, for the moment, whether that's a good idea or not. I just want to make sure you're aware that this would likely increase overall tax rates, as state governments benefit less from economies of scale. However much lower federal tax rates could be from reducing federal services would be more than matched by state level tax increases because states are now providing the services that the federal government used to provide.

Care for me to go on?

Yes, please do!

[Pctx]

Moving services to the states would just make state taxes higher, how would that benefit anyone, at all?

A planned move would probably offset the federal taxes but we wouldn't know till we tried.

wat

The individual that makes up America, not the American Government that makes us exceptional. What is so hard to understand about that?

Glad you got a laugh.

[Izayoi]

Is this board the Barack H. Obama Official Propaganda forum? Every other topic in the OT is "Romney sucks and is evil and stupid" this and "Romney sucks and is evil and stupid" that. Give it a rest. Then you whine about Fox News as a source for news and cite the Huffington Compost? Come on.

Gotta love the persecution complex.

"Guys, leave republicans alone! :("

[SnakeswithLasers]

Just asking the question of other people. I don't think there are enough success stories out there from actual people...but then again I haven't looked too hard for them, frankly. Feels like all we're talking about is gloom and doom, when things have actually been looking up.

Things aren't really looking up though. You can always find anecdotal success stories, but overall, the economy isn't doing well. Our regulators didn't do their job and are continuing to not do their job. Our politicians are completely entrenched in their little power struggle and neglecting to do their job (for fear that doing their job will help the 'other guy'). Our capitalists are hoarding all of their money and refusing to invest it anywhere. It's not a pretty sight.

[Phoenician_Viking]

What is his reality and who will be voting for him?

His reality is to flip flop on every subject, visit and insult other cultures, say, pay whatever he wants until he get elected. Republicans will vote for him.

[squidyj]

Human greed.

well okie dokie then.

[RurouniZel]

Gotta love the persecution complex. "Guys, leave republicans alone! :("

Today on CNN: When did the GOP become the whiners?

[CHEEZMO™]

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

[ElectricBlue187]

A planned move would probably offset the federal taxes but we wouldn't know till we tried..

We do know because it's common sense that the cost of things doesn't decrease just because a different person is paying for it. Shifting services to the states is just a republican ploy to kill off welfare by giving it to states who will then gut it because A) they can't afford it and B) they can't raise taxes. Society will suffer as a whole but a few rich people in certain states will pay less federal taxes for services they don't happen to use directly. That's all this is and I defy you to tell me why I'm wrong.

[TacticalFox88]

Pctx has to be a troll. There's no conceivable way I'll believe that he genuinely thinks Romney is the lesser of two evils.

[Gr1mLock]

His reality is to flip flop on every subject, visit and insult other cultures, say, pay whatever he wants until he get elected. Republicans will vote for him.

He's discovered the step beyond Obama's genius 'long term chess' strategy. He's just gonna hold every single position there is to have on any given subject. Can't possibly lose.

[Maleficence]

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

It really amazes me how these loopholes still exist, for both individuals and corporations, the basic move for anyone is to close these loopholes before you worry about changing tax rates etc. Make sure people are at least paying what they legally should be.

[Tomat]

Could somebody explain to me why some folks think this is a good idea?

[pigeon]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

It must be nice to exist in such a perfect state of disconnection from reality. Kind of Buddhist, really. You know that when the government spends money it raises GDP, right?

Different opinions. Romney will most likely release his 3-point bullet plan post RNC convention and VP pick of which will move him further ahead of Obama.

An excellent example.

[Amir0x]

American Exceptionalism for starters as it values the individual instead of the collective. You want a stark contrast between candidates, do some research on this area. Also, any tax increase on any class in America cannot be afforded as the priority is to get GDP up and people spending. The government needs money to run, I get that, but there also needs to move towards curtailing services and move those towards states responsibilities. I would imagine that is another good contrast between Romney and Obama. Care for me to go on?

oh boy I almost feel bad for this guy, he's like a mouse with Opiate the hawk circling from above. These are not intellectual equals this post makes that quite clear lol

[Pctx]

Can you explain what this means? There is nothing precise or specific here.

See below.

I'm asking for your specific preferences, not a general understanding of economics. I'm in school for economics right now.

My preferences is that the ultimate person responsible for the well being of the United States end up standing for each and every value that makes America great. I don't see that with Obama. That is my opinion.

So larger deficits are okay? That's an honest question -- because that appears to be what you're endorsing.

You talking Keynesian economics? What's the word that gets kicked around... sustainable that's right. I'm curious (this goes for all of GAF actually) that do you think Romney will outspend Obama in the first year? So far we've had $1 Trillion+ a year from Obama and that isn't sustainable. The only way we can come back to sanity is a measured approach at reduction in government services and revenue that was going towards meaningless programs going towards things we need.

Okay, so you'd prefer these services be taken away from the federal government and given to the state government? Let's set aside, for the moment, whether that's a good idea or not. I just want to make sure you're aware that this would likely increase overall tax rates, as state governments benefit less from economies of scale. However much lower federal tax rates could be from reducing federal services would be more than matched by state level tax increases because states are now providing the services that the federal government used to provide.

As I mentioned above, a tax increase at some point or a re-direction of tax dollars to programs that are necessary is becoming a necessity on a daily basis. Aside from economies of scale and actual true dollars savings (I think the Federal Government is around $0.70 cents per $1 dollar spent on overhead), are you saying that the Federal Government is more or less efficient than local government?

Yes, please do!

I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views. His policies indicate a much stronger connection with small business of which I could at length to describe my displeasure with Obama's "You didn't build that..." remarks but won't. Let's see what else; The guy is successful in life and like his father worked to achieve where he is today so that's a plus.

[EnderWiggles]

Could somebody explain to me why some folks think this is a good idea?

You're thinking too much, you just gotta feel it

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Colin Powell said his education was paid for by the rich. Look how he turned out (he's a social liberal BTW).

I don't understand why the rich wouldn't want a more educative, productive and healthy workforce. That just means more money for the rich.

[RustyNails]

The individual that makes up America, not the American Government that makes us exceptional. What is so hard to understand about that?

Can you drop the "we're exceptional" banter please? It's grating. It doesn't mean crap.

[Tomat]

You're thinking too much, you just gotta feel it

Haha. I'm trying to be neutral here, but I'm not really seeing this. I'm wondering how the justify/rationalize it.

[Suikoguy]

I don't understand why the rich wouldn't want a more educative, productive and healthy workforce. That just means more money for the rich.

I'm increasingly of the belief that people have become too shortsighted.

[The Technomancer]

His policies indicate a much stronger connection with small business

Obama is for subsidies and tax breaks for small businesses to help them prosper. Romney is for increased tax breaks for people who are already exorbitantly wealthy.

[Bombadil]

The individual that makes up America, not the American Government that makes us exceptional. What is so hard to understand about that?

I get the feeling Republicans and rich people in general feel like they are above the government. They don't like paying taxes to the government because the government is for poor people.

The poor republicans are not have-nots, right? They're soon-to-haves. They're still part of the inner circle of wealth, in their minds. They're just waiting by the coat check for their checks to clear, but don't worry, they're still part of the party, right?

Fuck. This demonization of government is bullshit. They're not trying to take away your freedoms, they're not going to steal your guns, they're not going to occupy your homes. Some people are still living in the 1700s.

[ssolitare]

Hehe, Romney does not give a single fuck about small businesses.

[CHEEZMO™]

I get the feeling Republicans and rich people in general feel like they are above the government. They don't like paying taxes to the government because the government is for poor people. The poor republicans are not have-nots, right? They're soon-to-haves. They're still part of the inner circle of wealth, in their minds. They're just waiting by the coat check for their checks to clear, but don't worry, they're still part of the party, right?

Temporarily embarassed millionaires.

[Black Mamba]

You talking Keynesian economics? What's the word that gets kicked around... sustainable that's right. I'm curious (this goes for all of GAF actually) that do you think Romney will outspend Obama in the first year? So far we've had $1 Trillion+ a year from Obama and that isn't sustainable. The only way we can come back to sanity is a measured approach at reduction in government services and revenue that was going towards meaningless programs going towards things we need.

Unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class, as the OP's study demonstrates it has to do so to be revenue neutral, then he's going to create massive deficits. Bigger than what Obama has done. Whatever cut in spending he does will be outpaced by lower tax receipts.

If you're concerned about deficits, the last one I'd look at is Romney.

[The Technomancer]

Also

You talking Keynesian economics? What's the word that gets kicked around... sustainable that's right. I'm curious (this goes for all of GAF actually) that do you think Romney will outspend Obama in the first year? So far we've had $1 Trillion+ a year from Obama and that isn't sustainable. The only way we can come back to sanity is a measured approach at reduction in government services and revenue that was going towards meaningless programs going towards things we need.

Also are you advocating for austerity here? I can't quite tell

[Pctx]

We do know because it's common sense that the cost of things doesn't decrease just because a different person is paying for it. Shifting services to the states is just a republican ploy to kill off welfare by giving it to states who will then gut it because A) they can't afford it and B) they can't raise taxes. Society will suffer as a whole but a few rich people in certain states will pay less federal taxes for services they don't happen to use directly. That's all this is and I defy you to tell me why I'm wrong.

So you do then agree that can't afford welfare because it by definition is a endless handout that neither the Federal Government nor local governments can afford to take on. Interesting. As to your latter point, that remains to be seen. Trickle down, trickle up, trickle out the boondocks, we know that people will do what they need to do to survive and that is in any capacity regardless of infrastructure that is in place.

Pctx has to be a troll. There's no conceivable way I'll believe that he genuinely thinks Romney is the lesser of two evils.

So it's popular to be name calling when people engage in conversation about what they believe huh? Just because an opinion is different doesn't make it any less valid than yours or anyone else for that matter.

It must be nice to exist in such a perfect state of disconnection from reality. Kind of Buddhist, really. You know that when the government spends money it raises GDP, right?

When you say "spends money" are you talking about money that is backed by gold or are we talking QE1 and QE2 money?

An excellent example.

.

[Amir0x]

I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views. His policies indicate a much stronger connection with small business of which I could at length to describe my displeasure with Obama's "You didn't build that..." remarks but won't. Let's see what else; The guy is successful in life and like his father worked to achieve where he is today so that's a plus.

What is Romney's foreign policy exactly? On what level do you think Romney's plan is better for this country? What specifically about Obama's foreign policy do you disagree with?

I doubt your answers here would be more than skin deep since your level of reasoning seemingly doesn't go beyond factually misinterpreting comments Obama made about society working in unison to achieve goals impossible to achieve alone, but I am curious to see if you can do something other than vaguely quote Tea Party/Fox News logic.

[Veezy]

My preferences is that the ultimate person responsible for the well being of the United States end up standing for each and every value that makes America great. I don't see that with Obama. That is my opinion. .

America is great because of the safety of our location in the world (two big ass oceans) and because a bunch of racist ass holes had a few good ideas 200 years ago. Can you list some other values that are truly "unique," besides the fact we're one of the lowest taxed nations in the Western world?

American exceptionalism doesn't exist. We are a society that needs each other in order to do better as a nation. Taxes are part of that. Social programs are too.

You seem to feel that Mitt Romney, a man who is rich because 1. his daddy was rich and 2. because he was part of a business whose job was to make money of the reduction in size and closure of other businesses, is more in touch with how "great" America is? Compared to the biracial dude who comes from a family of modest means that believes that a community benefits from a community helping each other and admitting that taxes are part of that?

[Stinkles]

What about them? To some people they are important but they aren't paramount to the country sustaining its lively hood. Is Romney's "non-plan" as you call it any better or worse than what Team Obama has done for the past 4 years? Honest question and what is Romney planning on doing to "curtail american freedoms"? That sounds like left-wing hyperbole. So true. Are they? Ice cold man.... ice cold. Also.... Different opinions. Romney will most likely release his 3-point bullet plan post RNC convention and VP pick of which will move him further ahead of Obama. I'm sorry to say but every single time I see an Obama ad here in Oregon I literally say out loud "What a lying sack of crap..." because I can't view the guy as anything but a liar after the past 4 years of economic bliss, car company bailouts and the continued failed policies from our larger government. That coupled with the fact that I cannot agree with someone who is on their own agenda that differs with where this country came from. 'Make money? Pay more tax. Want to be a millionare? Fuck you, pay taxes bitch... its your fair share. Kill the coal industry? Why not, I'm not running the economy well, might as well do something.' Obama can't really run on anything worth mentioning save maybe the affordable care act which if Romney wins, that shit goes down with executive order. I will say this though, if you're for higher taxes to increase government size, goods and services, I don't agree with that. If you're for higher taxes to pay down the deficit, maybe we can have a conversation. If you for investing in infrastructure.... look at all that TARP money ($1 Trillion to be exact) did with those shovel ready jobs. They were shovel ready.... shovel ready for the bullshit out of Washington D.C.

Are you seriously saying that you find Obama to be more dishonest than Romney? And are you seriously conflating facts with opinions?

So it's popular to be name calling when people engage in conversation about what they believe huh? Just because an opinion is different doesn't make it any less valid than yours or anyone else for that matter. .

You act as if two opinions must be equally valid or correct, or factual. This kind of false equivalency has driven the GOP and actually the media for far too long. One of the candidates is worse than the other for FACTUAL reasons. You can opine about those components and argue your case, but they do not start from equal grounding.

[Izayoi]

I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views. His policies indicate a much stronger connection with small business of which I could at length to describe my displeasure with Obama's "You didn't build that..." remarks but won't. Let's see what else; The guy is successful in life and like his father worked to achieve where he is today so that's a plus.

Oh no, please do describe (at length) why you're upset about it. Do you even know the context in which it was stated?

This should be great.

[jchap]

The authors of this study literally took a bullet point, made some bad assumptions, and allowed it to steer their conclusion. It was assumed that no cuts are made to account for the loss in tax revenue and also that the proportion saved from the higher income bracket must be fully shifted to the middle and lower income bracket to balance the net difference. To do this they assume Romney would have to eliminate child tax credits, mortgage credits, and other credits for people making less than 200k (something he has never proposed and that aren't even politically realistic). I'm open to real analysis of some of these political proposals but the amount of hand waving going on in this report is offensive to my sense of logic.

This is why I hate political season.

[Ramblin]

Can you drop the "we're exceptional" banter please? It's grating. It doesn't mean crap.

Sounds liker someone isn't a patriot.

[The Technomancer]

So you do then agree that can't afford welfare because it by definition is a endless handout that neither the Federal Government nor local governments can afford to take on. Interesting. As to your latter point, that remains to be seen.

.,..what? His point was that welfare currently isn't affordable because taxes are too low. (if we go full on Keynesian, the problem isn't cost, the problem is inflation)

Trickle down, trickle up, trickle out the boondocks, we know that people will do what they need to do to survive and that is in any capacity regardless of infrastructure that is in place.

Holy shit. Seriously, holy shit. That is your vision for America? That, right there, is what you consider acceptable? People struggling to survive?

[vcassano1]

Holy shit. Seriously, holy shit. That is your vision for America? That, right there, is what you consider acceptable? People struggling to survive?

That is his opinion.

[Black Mamba]

The authors of this study literally took a bullet point, made some bad assumptions, and allowed it to steer their conclusion. It was assumed that no cuts are made to account for the loss in tax revenue and also that the proportion saved from the higher income bracket must be fully shifted to the middle and lower income bracket to balance the net difference.

Romney is claiming to be revenue-neutral. Therefore, you don't have to assume any cuts because REVENUE has to be the same.

To do this they assume Romney would have to eliminate child tax credits, mortgage credits, and other credits for people making less than 200k (something he has never proposed and that aren't even politically realistic). I'm open to real analysis of some of these political proposals but the amount of hand waving going on in this report is offensive to my sense of logic. This is why I hate political season.

Republicans have already proposed to end a lot of these things. In their House bills. Pretty sure Romney will go along.

These are assumptions based on what Republicans have been proposing for months.

[ElectricBlue187]

So you do then agree that can't afford welfare because it by definition is a endless handout that neither the Federal Government nor local governments can afford to take on. Interesting.

nope thats not even close to what i said. Read it again, this time with comprehension.

As to your latter point, that remains to be seen. Trickle down, trickle up, trickle out the boondocks, we know that people will do what they need to do to survive and that is in any capacity regardless of infrastructure that is in place.

So your in favor of an america where poor children live on the street and eat rats to survive. Interesting.

[Cyan]

Just asking the question of other people. I don't think there are enough success stories out there from actual people...but then again I haven't looked too hard for them, frankly. Feels like all we're talking about is gloom and doom, when things have actually been looking up.

I'm doing great. Though I actually do owe my job to a "job creator."

[Shinjica]

Wait wait, it wasn't Romney who made a speech about how Obama would increase tax for the middle class?

[jchap]

Romney is claiming to be revenue-neutral. Therefore, you don't have to assume any cuts because REVENUE has to be the same.

Do you have to assume that he would eliminate all popular tax cuts for everyone making less than 200k? Because I would call that a bad assumption.

These people took a political bullet point and spun it into assuming he would commit political suicide.