Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
August 17th, 2012, 12:35 PM
Raising taxes, by itself, does nothing. Bush raised taxes and it didn't help because he kept on spending.
Clinton revised welfare, limiting how long someone could be on it, and even more important, he reduced the federal civilian payroll to 1960s levels. That was a huge deal. And yes, he raised taxes.
How did that help?
The biggest problem with the debt at that time,was that it was sopping up investment money. When the debt was cut, the government wasn't competing with businesses for investment money. The result was start-up capital became easier to obtain, and more businesses expanded and hired people, and that took off on the longest peacetime expansion in US history.
Reagan did something like that, but it didn't work because massive tax cuts were combined with even more massive spending. For a while, you get prosperity until it has to be paid back. Reagan later reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase (in inflation-constant dollars) in US history.
Slogan/motto:
THE CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DEFENDER OF LIBERTY
Reputation:
August 17th, 2012, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Raising taxes, by itself, does nothing. Bush raised taxes and it didn't help because he kept on spending.
Clinton revised welfare, limiting how long someone could be on it, and even more important, he reduced the federal civilian payroll to 1960s levels. That was a huge deal. And yes, he raised taxes.
How did that help?
The biggest problem with the debt at that time,was that it was sopping up investment money. When the debt was cut, the government wasn't competing with businesses for investment money. The result was start-up capital became easier to obtain, and more businesses expanded and hired people, and that took off on the longest peacetime expansion in US history.
Reagan did something like that, but it didn't work because massive tax cuts were combined with even more massive spending. For a while, you get prosperity until it has to be paid back. Reagan later reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase (in inflation-constant dollars) in US history.
But stopped the bleeding.
I think you nailed it
It does not matter if taxes are raised or lowered if there is more and more spending. What needs to happen is cut spending and I don't mean cutting the rate of increase.
Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
August 18th, 2012, 02:30 PM
I agree. Forget taxes, will either Romney or Obama cut spending?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
Wow. "I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."
This alone could hand the election to Obama.
The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.
Favorable Conditions
To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
Romney seems to be recycling trickle down economics. He needs to show leadership by saying outright what he would cut. Without massive cuts, the deficit will rise.
This is bad, bad news for Romney and his supporters.
Good article kmo!
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Who, as president, would net the most economic success for the US economy and why do you think so?
Without a doubt, Romney. Obama has brought us to the brink of destruction. He's an enemy of business and a fan of big government. His dream is not the dream of OUR fathers.
Wow. "I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible.
Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election."
This alone could hand the election to Obama.
The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table.
Favorable Conditions
To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
Romney seems to be recycling trickle down economics. He needs to show leadership by saying outright what he would cut. Without massive cuts, the deficit will rise.
This is bad, bad news for Romney and his supporters.
Good article kmo!
The Tax Policy Center is the product of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute....hardly non-partisan.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
August 19th, 2012, 08:50 PM
Quote:
The Tax Policy Center is the product of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute....hardly non-partisan.
It's not hard to figure out why Romney refuses to give specifics. Fact, is, he can't hope to grant huge new tax cuts for his wealthy friends, without big tax increases for the middle class. Forget balancing the budget.
And Romney's claim that the TPC is liberal and biased?
However, when TPC analyzed Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) tax plan during the GOP presidential primaries, the Romney camp called it an “objective, third party analysis.” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...y-study-taxes/
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
August 20th, 2012, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glorydaz
Without a doubt, Romney. Obama has brought us to the brink of destruction. He's an enemy of business and a fan of big government. His dream is not the dream of OUR fathers.
Go Free Enterprise.
So, Romney is better by default? What is actually good about Romney? Otherwise, it sounds like a monkey could be running against Obama and you would support it for presidency.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
August 26th, 2012, 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
If your poll had more than two options, I may have voted.
Offering only two options is the point! Only one of these two will be POTUS on Jan 1st.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Offering only two options is the point! Only one of these two will be POTUS on Jan 1st.
True; but if there had been something like: "neither president will have a measurable impact on the economy" or "the economy will continue to improve/slow regardless of who is elected" I would have picked one of those.
at your rep comment)
Linear Mode
