tcarrier32;1290132 wrote:http://www.roboromney.com/

I mean shit, who else can simultaneously stand for every position at once while having half the United States circle-jerking about him?

Most of the American people don't even know who Mitt Romney is or give a fuck. Some are too stupid to care. Others are smart enough to realize it doesn't matter.

sleeper;1290564 wrote:Except a lot of those morons don't actually vote.

Youre wrong there ol Sleeper...the disenfranchised will come out in droves for their Black Messiah. Hell he's going to be on your own hallowed Oval on Weds with the Black Eyed Peas and 50,000 Barak O' Nuts are going to vote for him just because he knows Fergie. Accept it gang this race never had a starting flag and the checkerd flag is already waving. I'll waste my vote right along with ya but I'm not delusional.

gut;1290476 wrote:$6T more in debt to get where we were in the beginning of 2009 is "improving"? Wow, that's quite the spin from your "news" sources.

Romney is not cutting taxes - that's not what "revenue neutral" means. I've tried to explain the difference vs lowering marginal rates on additional income, but if people can't grasp even the most basic economic/fiscal concepts then we really are doomed as a nation.

No that's not what revenue neutral means. 20% rate cut means that. No matter how you try to spin it, Romney is cutting the tax rate 20% and hoping enough new jobs with additional tax revenue and enough cutting enough government support can cover it. Which still doesn't account for the tax cuts Bush already implemented which is a huge cause of our massive debt.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1290883 wrote:No that's not what revenue neutral means. 20% rate cut means that. No matter how you try to spin it, Romney is cutting the tax rate 20% and hoping enough new jobs with additional tax revenue and enough cutting enough government support can cover it. Which still doesn't account for the tax cuts Bush already implemented which is a huge cause of our massive debt.

You are dense and I'm starting to understand how you could vote for Obama. Revenue neutral means no change in revenues, because deductions/loopholes offset the lower marginal rate.

Now lower marginal rates on NEW INCOME are lower, but that is not a tax cut, not a loss of revenues (because you didn't have those revenues before). That's the upside of a pro-growth policy.

You've got all this very, very wrong. I think you are smarter than this, but trying desperately to rationalize that Obama has no plan and Romney has a good one. It's not difficult to understand, but you appear to have a vested interest in being unable to understand it.

gut;1291089 wrote:You are dense and I'm starting to understand how you could vote for Obama. Revenue neutral means no change in revenues, because deductions/loopholes offset the lower marginal rate.

.

According to NO ONE except you.

gut;1291089 wrote: Now lower marginal rates on NEW INCOME are lower, but that is not a tax cut, not a loss of revenues (because you didn't have those revenues before).

Assuming new jobs will be created (12 mil lol.. I still can't get over that figure)

gut;1291089 wrote: That's the upside of a pro-growth policy.

Which has never been proven and has ALWAYS been circumstantial.

gut;1291089 wrote:You've got all this very, very wrong. I think you are smarter than this, but trying desperately to rationalize that Obama has no plan and Romney has a good one. It's not difficult to understand, but you appear to have a vested interest in being unable to understand it.

You're blindly loyal to Mitt (or whoever the GOP throws up) and are trying to rationalize a policy that EVERY independent committee says "hey.. this just doesn't add up".

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291156 wrote:According to NO ONE except you.

According to Rosen just the other day (the one Dems keep quoting) and some others. You really need to develop some knowledge and critical thought instead of just believing the propaganda an incompetent and unscrupulous administration keeps cramming down.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291156 wrote:Assuming new jobs will be created (12 mil lol.. I still can't get over that figure)

That's the kind of debateable analysis politicians spew all the time. What we know is Obama hasn't recovered any of the jobs lost and this economy has struggled to even keep pace with population growth. Again, it's comically ironic the way you hold Romney's feet to the fire, no matter how many times it's explained, and have no such apparent standard for Obama who, by most accounts, has been an unmitigated failure. There is absolutely no way you'd be voting for Obama if you turned the same critical eye to his policies and accomplishments.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291156 wrote:Which has never been proven and has ALWAYS been circumstantial.

Pro-growth policies aren't really in doubt. The feedback effect may be debateable, but Romney's idea of cutting marginal rates being pro growth is pretty fundamental. Nothing circumstantial about it. It's not even a new or particularly novel idea.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291156 wrote: You're blindly loyal to Mitt (or whoever the GOP throws up) and are trying to rationalize a policy that EVERY independent committee says "hey.. this just doesn't add up".

First, I'm not a Republican - the only thing I have in "common" with that party is fiscal responsibility, something they've longed ceased to be about. Second, my "loyalty" is based on my education and understanding of economics - I can make-up my own mind without needing to be bukkaked with anyone's propaganda & rhetoric. You're denial of basic fundamental concepts wreaks either of ignorance or some blind emotional attachment to Obama.

gut;1291233 wrote:According to Rosen just the other day (the one Dems keep quoting) and some others. You really need to develop some knowledge and critical thought instead of just believing the propaganda an incompetent and unscrupulous administration keeps cramming down.


.

No Rosen said it was possible with "robust economic growth". However, only you and Mitt can seem to predict the future and know there's going to be a plethora of jobs being added. :/

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291243 wrote:No Rosen said it was possible with "robust economic growth". However, only you and Mitt can seem to predict the future and know there's going to be a plethora of jobs being added. :/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

sleeper;1291265 wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

yes?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291267 wrote:yes?

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.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

sleeper;1291269 wrote:Straight from the horse's mouth.

"TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole. "

tcarrier32;1290479 wrote:can't tell if serious or not...

either way, yes i do. next question?

i know this is a novel concept, but neither Obama nor Romney will get my vote. much in the same way that neither Obama nor McCain got my vote 4 years ago.

you hear that sound? its the sound of QuakerOats' head exploding.

Cue the onslaught of whining from the little sillypants crowd because you're "wasting" your vote because you aren't voting for Obama...BUT YET you're also not voting for the guy they want you to vote for. Since in Retardopia, everything is black and white and if you disagree with the rep of one major party, you HAVE to be 100% behind the other or you're a fucking blood traitor!

Rosen factors in there being economic growth to make it plausible.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291272 wrote:"TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole. "

It's Rosen's study. I don't think he'd create something just to go against it a week later.

sleeper;1291286 wrote:It's Rosen's study. I don't think he'd create something just to go against it a week later.

I know it's Rosen's study. And he assumed economic growth to make it plausible. He didn't create something else a week later.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291288 wrote:I know it's Rosen's study. And he assumed economic growth to make it plausible. He didn't create something else a week later.

Oh lordy lordy. Darn those assumptions; we should just make models with no assumptions, problem solved!

sleeper;1291292 wrote:Oh lordy lordy. Darn those assumptions; we should just make models with no assumptions, problem solved!

We also assumed the Bush tax cuts would do the same. Care to venture how those turned out?

The economic growth comes from repealing the Affordable Care Act and reducing the high-income surcharges. From the link in Sleeper's article that said it explains the math.

TPC's study assumes that pro-growth tax reform cannot produce any economic growth. TPC acknowledges that, according to an economic model created by Harvard professors Greg Mankiw and Matthew Weinzerl that assumes tax reform will produce economic growth, "the tax cuts would result in revenue reductions of $307 billion (instead of $360 billion)." In other words, economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.

The footnote about this section:

Note that this baseline incorporates revenues from the ACA high-income surcharges. Our primary analysis therefore assumes that the repeal of the ACA is “paid for” to achieve revenue neutrality. However, this does not alter our primary conclusions. For example, using a modified baseline that excludes the ACA leads to similar results.

In addition to the $53 billion this is assumed to provide, there is an additional $45 billion that can be achieved:

That still leaves us $33 billion short. But TPC also acknowledges that its study assumed that Romney would not touch "the exclusion of interest on state and local bonds and the exclusion of inside-buildup on life insurance vehicles." According to TPC, eliminating these exclusions could raise $45 billion in revenue.So economic growth ($53 billion) plus nixing these two exclusions ($45 billion) equals $98 billion. That's $12 billion more than the $86 billion needed to prevent a middle class tax hike.

It is doable albeit the TPC admitted it's difficult.

mucalum49;1291300 wrote:The economic growth comes from repealing the Affordable Care Act and reducing the high-income surcharges. From the link in Sleeper's article that said it explains the math.

Rosen had always assumed the repeal of ACA when TPC did not and said it still assumed additional revenue from new job growth to make it viable.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291293 wrote:We also assumed the Bush tax cuts would do the same. Care to venture how those turned out?

Right, because the Bush tax cuts are the reason we are in the mess we are in. It's a good thing Obama doesn't want to extend the Bush tax cuts. :rolleyes:

sleeper;1291308 wrote:Right, because the Bush tax cuts are the reason we are in the mess we are in. It's a good thing Obama doesn't want to extend the Bush tax cuts. :rolleyes:

They helped so wonderfully though!

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291310 wrote:They helped so wonderfully though!

Yeah. Most people are really looking forward to January 1st when those expire. Nothing like increasing economic growth by taking more from people's pay checks and wasting it in the US government.

sleeper;1291315 wrote:Yeah. Most people are really looking forward to January 1st when those expire. Nothing like increasing economic growth by taking more from people's pay checks and wasting it in the US government.

Nothing like the economic growth it created when issued.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1291316 wrote:Nothing like the economic growth it created when issued.

Oh I'm sure people really want to go back to when unemployment was 5%, college tuition was affordable, and Congress actually got things done. That just sounds so much worse than what we have now.

sleeper;1291319 wrote:Oh I'm sure people really want to go back to when unemployment was 5%, college tuition was affordable, and Congress actually got things done. That just sounds so much worse than what we have now.

I agree but Clinton already served two terms. We can elect the guy he endorses though.