[TacticalFox88]

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.

Holy shit, for the love of fucking god, WATCH THE WHOLE THING FOR CONTEXT!

And people wonder why we can't take conservative thinking seriously.

[pigeon]

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.

"Let them eat cake."

Just because an opinion is different doesn't make it any less valid than yours or anyone else for that matter.

That's really not what makes your opinion less valid.

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

Oh dear.

You know that America doesn't actually have any money backed by gold any more, right? In either case, GDP goes up both ways.

[Veezy]

.,..what? His point was that welfare currently isn't affordable because taxes are too low. Holy shit. Seriously, holy shit. That is your vision for America? That, right there, is what you consider acceptable? People struggling to survive?

Let's make this clear.

If a parent has to feed their kid, and they need a loaf of bread, they will kill. I've been around the homeless. You keep raising that percentage, they will truly do "anything."

I'm not saying that welfare is a tool used to keep people from going crazy, but cutting off social programs because "people are just living off a handout" with no plan to help these people is silly. Charity isn't going to cut. Social programs are a good thing for everybody.

[Deified Data]

If I were as rich as Romney, I'd hold the same position.

[Suikoguy]

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.

How else do you keep it revenue neutral?

[pigeon]

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.

Once again, if you actually read the study, they address spending cuts by noting that they will in all likelihood be more regressive dollar for dollar than tax increases. In other words, eliminating tax breaks only is still the most favorable assumption to make about his plan in terms of its impact on the lower and middle classes.

[ElectricBlue187]

"Let them eat cake".

"Well if they'd rather die then they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population!"

[Bombadil]

If I were as rich as Romney, I'd hold the same position.

Yes, we'd all be clueless about reality if we were sheltered by our wealth.

But since we're not.

[Black Mamba]

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.

It's what the Repubs have been proposing.

Also, re-read it.

This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.

Their analysis shows it by giving a best-case scenarios. Meaning, they took the weakest possible assumptions to hurt the middle class and ran with it. Or in other words, if Romney got his way, this is the best case scenario for the middle class (assuming revenue neutrality).

The truth is, it would be a lot worse.

[Big Baybee]

Did that dude really just talk about the "You didn't build that" bullshit? You know he was talking about roads, right?

[CHEEZMO™]

Just because an opinion is different doesn't make it any less valid than yours or anyone else for that matter.

Ah. The main support of the anti-intellectualism and wilful reality-warping that is responsible for the political (and to a degree social) mess the US currenty finds itself in.

[Pctx]

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

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

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.

Which will lead to greater deficits by the Federal Government. Also, if Obama is for that, I sure don't see it.

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 study (coming back to the OP) states that it would be imperative to NOT tax someone in order to get spending under control. The funny thing is how many of us make over $250,000 a year? Or a million? I can count on one hand friends I have that make that much coin have watched them move states because of state and federal taxes. The problem with this issue is you can't have both. CUT GOVERNMENT! REDUCE TAXES! It gets old after a while since we are played as political volleyball. My hope is that Romney picks either one or the other and sticks with it.

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

In some ways yes because we as a people have gone beyond are means both individually and corporately as country.

[balladofwindfishes]

those poor rich people having to move because their taxes are too high, oh the humanity.

[Black Mamba]

The study (coming back to the OP) states that it would be imperative to NOT tax someone in order to get spending under control. The funny thing is how many of us make over $250,000 a year? Or a million? I can count on one hand friends I have that make that much coin have watched them move states because of state and federal taxes. The problem with this issue is you can't have both. CUT GOVERNMENT! REDUCE TAXES! It gets old after a while since we are played as political volleyball. My hope is that Romney picks either one or the other and sticks with it.

I can tell you his answer. It will be reduce taxes, grow deficits, and most likely not reduce any spending. Heck, he'll probably increase it.

But those reduction in taxes will be predominately for those earning a lot. And maybe the middle class with get a slight reduction in taxes to delude themselves into thinking they got a good deal.

The republican playbook is the same. We saw this with W.

[The Technomancer]

In some ways yes because we as a people have gone beyond are means both individually and corporately as country.

Gone beyond our means by...doing what? Trying to ensure that no citizen of the most prosperous nation on earth is at risk of dying from starvation?

[Sobriquet]

Also, if Obama is for that, I sure don't see it.

Ah, so you haven't been paying attention.

[mernst23]

You can't reason with someone so obtuse, i don't understand why people are even bothering.

[SnakeswithLasers]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

Wow. =|

The reason the colonies sought independence has nothing to do with your DNA.

[jchap]

It's what the Repubs have been proposing. Also, re-read it. Their analysis shows it by giving a best-case scenarios. Meaning, they took the weakest possible assumptions to hurt the middle class and ran with it. Or in other words, if Romney got his way, this is the best case scenario for the middle class (assuming revenue neutrality). The truth is, it would be a lot worse.

They completely eliminated them for the top bracket (these cuts are a tiny percentage of top bracket tax returns) but also reduced them by 60% for the lower tax brackets (something that is not politically realistic and has never been proposed by Romney).

[Izayoi]

Did that dude really just talk about the "You didn't build that" bullshit? You know he was talking about roads, right?

Cut him some slack. We can't expect republicans to fact-check, can we?

[Dave Inc.]

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

The federal government can accumulate debt, state governments cannot.

[csquared587]

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.

I'm not voting for either of these guys, but it's amazing how a lot of people here are just going with the huffington post's assumptions here. Sure, Romney's plan probably isn't very specific at this point, but it doesn't give these guys a free reign to fill it in however they see fit.

it does not seem very honest.

[Pctx]

Wow. =| The reason the colonies sought independence has nothing to do with your DNA.

cultural heritage has nothing to do with makes up my world view? Yeah, that's a good one.

[GungHo]

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

It's a horrible idea that will resonate perfectly with his target market. That is why was going back and forth with Phonecian_Viking. This plays very much into the desires of those people who are already going to vote for him: Rich Republicans and the Poor Republicans that think that if they make life really good for Rich Republicans that somehow the Rich Republicans will be kind enough to throw out a bone to them. It makes no fucking sense, but that's what "his people" want, and he's giving it to them.

[coldvein]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

this is .. ummm .. i dunno. something not felt by most people.

[vcassano1]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

Learn your history. You left the Empire because a certain group of people wanted greater power and control. Which was achievable through independence. I mean, support for the revolution and opposition to it can be traced pretty consistently to those who traded in the trans-atlantic system with the British Empire and between those who didn't. It was all about the money and the power - don't pretend otherwise.

EDIT: I suppose that could be what you call, 'American Exceptionalism' - the lust for money and power. If that is the case, however, then I despair.

[Utako]

Poorly worded in the OP.

Solution: make more than $200,000 in 2013.

[Deified Data]

Yes, we'd all be clueless about reality if we were sheltered by our wealth. But since we're not.

I'm sorry - I was being glib.

Rest assured that I'm just as frustrated as you, though I'm beyond the point of being offended or surprised by the man.

[Dragoon En Regalia]

I haven't been too up-to-date on the recent happenings of this thread. But this thread is certainly wacko stuff. Keep it up, Ptcx!

[Forever]

that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

cultural heritage has nothing to do with makes up my world view? Yeah, that's a good one.

So would you say that you like Romney's appreciation for America's anglo-saxon heritage?

[PhoReal]

At this rate a Republican will never get voted into office ever again. Good show.

[Sobriquet]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

How long has your family been here and why did they arrive?

My first American relative arrived in 1632 to make mad bank.

[i-Lo]

I agree more with Romney's foreign policy and I don't think he is a warmonger contrary to popular views.

So Romney's idea of backing Israel if (or more like when) they go to war with Iran is not not warmongering.. right right..

Young people die as the die of wars are cast by old and greedy.

I am not a fan of Obama either. Too many promises too little delivered and lies about protecting whistle blowers. That said, between the two evils Obama is the lesser one.

[Black Mamba]

They completely eliminated them for the top bracket (these cuts are a tiny percentage of top bracket tax returns) but also reduced them by 60% for the lower tax brackets (something that is not politically realistic and has never been proposed by Romney).

Which is why the claim that Romney will be revenue neutral is a lie. He's arguing he won't hurt revenues, but the point of the study in the OP is to show for that to be true, this is what he'd have to do.

Either you have to accept Romney is proposing all that stuff or that he's not revenue neutral and will be increasing deficits at a faster rate.

[Gr1mLock]

Did that dude really just talk about the "You didn't build that" bullshit? You know he was talking about roads, right?

You can't call a righty out on being uninformed. That's like..not allowed.

[RustyNails]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

What's that got to do with "exceptionalism"? You want me to list the countries that sought independence and won them?

[mernst23]

It's what the Repubs have been proposing. Also, re-read it. Their analysis shows it by giving a best-case scenarios. Meaning, they took the weakest possible assumptions to hurt the middle class and ran with it. Or in other words, if Romney got his way, this is the best case scenario for the middle class (assuming revenue neutrality). The truth is, it would be a lot worse.

I don't understand why they are assuming revenue neutrality. His plan isn't to increase middle class taxes. He'll give everyone their pittance and once again a good old boy will be in the white house so magically deficits won't matter again.

This entire HuffPo article is flat out bad editorializing.

[Jhriad]

At this rate a Republican will never get voted into office ever again. Good show.

Never underestimate the absolute stupidity and willful ignorance of the electorate.

[Raonak]

I don't know much about the economy, but why would anyone give rich people tax cuts while increasing middle class taxes?

Seems very backwards.

[Oracle Dragon]

The problem with this issue is you can't have both. CUT GOVERNMENT! REDUCE TAXES! It gets old after a while since we are played as political volleyball.

Seems like someone should do both: Cut government, increase taxes. Do away with the nonessential services and start filling up those coffers.

Keep the tax break for corps and the "trickle down" economics but tax the ever loving crap out of richies who hoard their wealth instead of investing those tax savings into actual job creation (like I'm sure was the idea). Profitable companies who outsource jobs that could have been done by Americans should have their taxes increased in relation to the percentage of their workforce they have sent offshore.

Why are American citizens providing financial incentives to corporations if they are not returning the favor by providing American jobs? "American Corporations" where the upper management are Americans and the workers are non in country should have massive tariffs on their goods to be treated as any other foreign import. If you want the tax breaks provided to domestic corporations, provide domestic job opportunities.

CAVEAT: I'm not American. The above is certain to be a gross oversimplification.

[pigeon]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

So yeah.

Also, if Obama is for that, I sure don't see it.

Have you considered looking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_B...bs_Act_of_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpsta...s_Startups_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America..._of_2009#Other

In some ways yes because we as a people have gone beyond are means both individually and corporately as country.

Surely if that were the case borrowers would be hesitant to lend to America, rather than being willing to lend money to America at a discount so that we could make money just by borrowing all the money available and lending it back out.

[CHEEZMO™]

Learn your history. You left the Empire because a certain group of people wanted greater power and control. Which was achievable through independence. I mean, support for the revolution and opposition to it can be traced pretty consistently to those who traded in the trans-atlantic system with the British Empire and between those who didn't. It was all about the money and the power - don't pretend otherwise.

George Washington was a rugged, self-made individual who got where he did by good old fashioned bootstrap-pullin' before declaring independence from the Evil British Empire because he wanted to be altruistic and thought it would and end the oppression of their taxes *spit* on his modest wealth.

[Izayoi]

To you. It means a great deal to me. This is a point I don't lord over people but there is a reason we left the oppression of Great Britain to start our own country and that is ingrained into my DNA of which no one will take.

Ah...

[Marleyman]

[balladofwindfishes]

We're not really exceptional in many things at all, besides having the largest military to the point that it's a drag on our revenue.

I mean, we have some of the worst health care in the modern world, we have terrible consumer rights, our housing market is volatile, our banks corrupt, our news alarmingly partisan, our copyright so broken it stifles innovation, our schools are crumpling, education is being actively destroyed, we have some of the worse social program in the first world, our bridges are to the point of danger, our roads crumpling, our skies polluted and segments of our people cannot exercise the same rights because of their sexual orientation.

So I'm trying to find what we're exceptional at and having a hell of time

[Pctx]

How long has your family been here and why did they arrive? My first American relative arrived in 1632 to make mad bank.

From what I've found, my mothers side goes back to 1712 of what is kept on record for my tribe. Gotta love GAF though since when there is blood in the water for a conservatives opinion, they love to bite.

[JCizzle]

It pains me that as one of the most prosperous nations in world history we're seriously debating taking away services for the less fortunate just to provide the wealthy with a bit more money that they don't really need. Certainly not a Christian ideal that many of those same people try to bring into many national discussions on moral issues.

[Smiles and Cries]

the fact that this guy even has a chance at winning makes me a sad panda

[Amir0x]

Pctx is like a walking comic strip

[Cyan]

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.

So, which do you want to cut: Social Security, Medicare, or the military?

(I think the Federal Government is around $0.70 cents per $1 dollar spent on overhead)

Where are you getting your numbers?

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

Hoo man. Never mind.