Can the US afford that $5tr?

[Murf76]

Mac -

I'm very surprised you need to ask - it's fairly obvious shorthand.

We all saw the debate, we all read the analyses following it and we all understand what the point is here: Romney's tax cuts will cause a massive drop in total tax revenues, and will almost certainly push up the national debt.

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

Oh for pete's sake... you people are always bitching about how the rich don't pay their taxes because of loopholes and tax evasion strategies and then when a guy comes along who knows where they are and how to close them, it's not fucking good enough for ya. And that, because he's not your Messiah, Barack. Well, Barack has had almost four years to do it. And guess what... he didn't.

 

[Saigon]

LOL Oldstyle, You don't think Obama and crew know anything about economic growth do you? They can't even look at what's going on in North Dakota to get a clue. That's why they're having such a hard time understanding Romney. Their only idea on revenue is to take it from someone else. They don't know how to bake a bigger pie.

Honestly, Vel, why not address the topic?

Do you really think adding $5 trillion to the US national debt is a good idea?

 

[Mac1958]

Mac -

I'm very surprised you need to ask - it's fairly obvious shorthand.

We all saw the debate, we all read the analyses following it and we all understand what the point is here: Romney's tax cuts will cause a massive drop in total tax revenues, and will almost certainly push up the national debt.

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

I bolded and turned the key word red.

I'll ask again: Is this figure net or gross? And if it's gross, why the intellectual dishonesty?

Doesn't seem like a tough question.

.

 

[Saigon]

And why is the "Romney Plan" expected to cost 5 trillion? Because it sounded like a good number when progressives made it up.

The best answer I've come up with on why it's going to cost $5 trillion
instead of $480 billion is because it covers 10 years and not just the
4 years of a Presidential Term. $1.92 trillion is the cost for the next 4 years.

Bingo!

So the question remains - can the US afford that? Is borrowing more money somehow now a conservative policy?

 

[Vel]

LOL Oldstyle, You don't think Obama and crew know anything about economic growth do you? They can't even look at what's going on in North Dakota to get a clue. That's why they're having such a hard time understanding Romney. Their only idea on revenue is to take it from someone else. They don't know how to bake a bigger pie.

Honestly, Vel, why not address the topic?

Do you really think adding $5 trillion to the US national debt is a good idea?

Really Saigon, Why not address that the numbers you've been fed are what the Obama campaign is feeding you. Even they had to walk it back. Couple growth with strategically closing tax loopholes and you get deficit reduction. Go back and look at the start and finish numbers Mitt had in Massachusetts.

 

[Wroberson]

Yes. America can and will survive.
However, we may lose a few people from every economic class.

I really don't know how I can answer this question. I really believe America can survive.
Yet there's a different issue that contradicts my belief. America can't survive free range immigration.
Individually some of us can;t afford it. As a group, we can and will afford it.

 

[Saigon]

Wroberson -

The US will definitely survive. Americans are as hard working, entrepreneurial and creative as any other people on earth, and more than most.

However, I think the GOP's plans at the moment are economic suicide. Borrowing more money on a record deficit makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Seawytch]

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

I bolded and turned the key word red.

I'll ask again: Is this figure net or gross? And if it's gross, why the intellectual dishonesty?

Doesn't seem like a tough question.

.

You said that, nobody else did. He does want $480 trillion in cuts over 10 years. He has said that he will close loopholes to pay for it. Nobody has denied that. The questions being asked is WHICH LOOPHOLES? He won't say so we're left to speculate. Apparently, there aren't enough loopholes out there to offset the amount of cuts without taking away tax credits that the middle class rely heavily on...like mortgage deductions.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What five trillion would you be speaking of? The five trillion dollars in tax cuts that the Obama campaign "says" that Romney has proposed? Didn't you get the memo on that, Saigon? Turns out the President and all the rest of you have been lying about that figure just like you've been lying about Romney planning to destroy Medicare and Social Security.

Just keep repeating it though, little buddy...maybe "someone" will believe you....

Actually, it is an accurate statement that Obama made on this. The fact that you want to simply deny it is notwithstanding.

 

[Mac1958]

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

I bolded and turned the key word red.

I'll ask again: Is this figure net or gross? And if it's gross, why the intellectual dishonesty?

Doesn't seem like a tough question.

.

You said that, nobody else did. He does want $480 trillion in cuts over 10 years. He has said that he will close loopholes to pay for it. Nobody has denied that. The questions being asked is WHICH LOOPHOLES? He won't say so we're left to speculate. Apparently, there aren't enough loopholes out there to offset the amount of cuts without taking away tax credits that the middle class rely heavily on...like mortgage deductions.

The title of the thread pretty clearly says $5 trillion. Obama has clearly said $5 trillion, multiple times. Diverting from those facts is, well, diversion.

I have no clue where Romney will fill in the gap, none. And I don't care, since I don't like him and won't be voting for him. For all I know, he's pulling stuff straight out of his ass. Pretty likely, actually, since he doesn't appear to have a discernible core.

But I give up. Frankly, I didn't expect a straight answer to my direct question, and that stuff really just becomes insulting after a few times. The answer to my question is this:

"Well Mac, we're focusing on Romney's five trillion in gross tax cuts and avoiding net tax cuts because it sounds better when we're trying to gain political advantage. If we were to be intellectually honest and go with what really matters, it just wouldn't sound as good. Intellectual honesty just isn't a high priority in partisan politics, as you know. So, tough shit. But hey, thanks for asking".

That would have been fine. I'd rather just get straight answers like that than be insulted with the diversion and game-playing. But that's just me.

.

 

[naturegirl]

I'm with Mac, the sh*t on here is getting so deep, I don't even want to participate anymore. There is no 5 trillion tax cut, it's all lies and BS, and the extreme leftists on this board believe the lie. I guess they would since they believe all the other lies thrown out there by their messiah.

Saigon is not progressive?? I had to clean my monitor after that statement.

Did you all see Obama during the debate?? He was at a complete loss for words, he looked like one of Jeff Dunham's dummy's. All he could do was repeat the lies and talking points in his many campaign speeches. Altitude sickness my butt, he's been on his high horse for 4 years, that altitude made me sick, not him,

I think I just need to take a hiatus from this board until after the elections, I'm tired of reading the same crap over and over and over. The radical left and radical right have no idea what's at stake, they're only interested in getting their points out there.

Stop, listen, pay attention.............you might actually learn something.

 

[Seawytch]

I bolded and turned the key word red.

I'll ask again: Is this figure net or gross? And if it's gross, why the intellectual dishonesty?

Doesn't seem like a tough question.

.

You said that, nobody else did. He does want $480 trillion in cuts over 10 years. He has said that he will close loopholes to pay for it. Nobody has denied that. The questions being asked is WHICH LOOPHOLES? He won't say so we're left to speculate. Apparently, there aren't enough loopholes out there to offset the amount of cuts without taking away tax credits that the middle class rely heavily on...like mortgage deductions.

The title of the thread pretty clearly says $5 trillion. Obama has clearly said $5 trillion, multiple times. Diverting from those facts is, well, diversion.

I have no clue where Romney will fill in the gap, none. And I don't care, since I don't like him and won't be voting for him. For all I know, he's pulling stuff straight out of his ass. Pretty likely, actually, since he doesn't appear to have a discernible core.

But I give up. Frankly, I didn't expect a straight answer to my direct question, and that stuff really just becomes insulting after a few times. The answer to my question is this:

"Well Mac, we're focusing on Romney's five trillion in gross tax cuts and avoiding net tax cuts because it sounds better when we're trying to gain political advantage. If we were to be intellectually honest and go with what really matters, it just wouldn't sound as good. Intellectual honesty just isn't a high priority in partisan politics, as you know. So, tough shit. But hey, thanks for asking".

That would have been fine. I'd rather just get straight answers like that than be insulted with the diversion and game-playing. But that's just me.

.

But the opening post mentioned the loopholes so I'm not seeing where the dishonesty is.

 

[Seawytch]

So you're going to continue to pretend that Romney wants a $5 trillion net tax cut?

.

Who is "pretending" that? He wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion over 10 years, yes or no? He has proposed paying for these cuts by eliminating loopholes, but won't specify which ones, yes or no? There aren't enough tax loopholes that exist that would cover the proposed tax cut, yes or no?

Oh for pete's sake... you people are always bitching about how the rich don't pay their taxes because of loopholes and tax evasion strategies and then when a guy comes along who knows where they are and how to close them, it's not fucking good enough for ya. And that, because he's not your Messiah, Barack. Well, Barack has had almost four years to do it. And guess what... he didn't.

So he's told you which ones he'll close? Enlighten us.

 

[Saigon]

I'm with Mac, the sh*t on here is getting so deep, I don't even want to participate anymore. There is no 5 trillion tax cut, it's all lies and BS, and the extreme leftists on this board believe the lie. I guess they would since they believe all the other lies thrown out there by their messiah.

Saigon is not progressive?? I had to clean my monitor after that statement.

And yet Business Week, the BBC and a wide range of conservative media disagree with you.


And no, I am not 'progressive'. I don't even know what it means. It just seems lilke another childish taunt a la "leftist".

 

[Oldstyle]

As for how you make up the loss of revenues from tax cuts? I believe if you look closely at the Reagan tax cuts you'll see that although Reagan cut taxes substantially that tax revenues were down only a negligible amount because his policies spurred so much economic growth. You progressives never want to talk about economic growth though...do you? Of course, I can understand WHY it's a sore subject under this President.

So economic growth will produce $5 trillion in extra tax revenues?

Really?


btw, I am not a "progressive".

Economic growth may or may not produce that amount. I would tend to put the figure at much less than 5 trillion over ten years but who knows. But since additional revenues from economic growth is just PART of the way that Romney is saying he will pay for his tax cuts...with the other part coming in the form of eliminating tax loopholes, he doesn't need to produce 5 trillion in extra tax revenues...which is what makes your claim that he DOES a blatant misrepresentation of the numbers involved here.

Now did "you' want to dispute my contention that Reagan did in fact raise extra tax revenues to offset his tax cuts by increasing economic growth?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm with Mac, the sh*t on here is getting so deep, I don't even want to participate anymore. There is no 5 trillion tax cut, it's all lies and BS, and the extreme leftists on this board believe the lie. I guess they would since they believe all the other lies thrown out there by their messiah.

Saigon is not progressive?? I had to clean my monitor after that statement.

And yet Business Week, the BBC and a wide range of conservative media disagree with you.


And no, I am not 'progressive'. I don't even know what it means. It just seems lilke another childish taunt a la "leftist".

Progressive is what you liberals started calling yourselves after you'd turned "liberal" into something that people cringed away from. You people are like a restaurant that gives people crap food and has to keep changing it's name so that the public is tricked into trying them again. Once you've made progressive as toxic as liberal, I'm quite sure we'll get some other variation.

 

[Saigon]

OldStyle -

I'm not a liberal, and I have to say - I find this constant labeling and pigeon-holing immensely childish. It's anti-debate. Why not just take what I post at face value and stop trying to pretend I am something that I am not?

To get to your points, I don't think anyone imagines closing loopholes is going to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of millions possibly, but not hundreds. Especially as it is a given that those loopholes will not be ones which benefit the wealthy.

Any way you cut it, Romey's ideas for generating tax revenue will leave the government out of pocket by literally billions of dollars per year.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL Oldstyle, You don't think Obama and crew know anything about economic growth do you? They can't even look at what's going on in North Dakota to get a clue. That's why they're having such a hard time understanding Romney. Their only idea on revenue is to take it from someone else. They don't know how to bake a bigger pie.

Honestly, Vel, why not address the topic?

Do you really think adding $5 trillion to the US national debt is a good idea?

Romney isn't proposing to add $5 trillion to the debt. Pretending that's what he wants to do is simply sleazy dishonest demagoguery.

Why should anyone waste his time addressing a bald faced lie? Quit pretending like you're interested in having an honest discussion of the issues. It's obvious to everyone that you're just another slimy lying left-wing shill for Obama.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama pulled the 5 trillion out of his ass.

Romney proposes to deal with the reduction in tax rates by growing the economy. The word that democrats never use is GROWTH. To democrats there is only one answer, raise taxes. Raising taxes slows growth. obama's goal is stagnation with taxing as the way to progress. It can't happen.

 

[Saigon]

obama pulled the 5 trillion out of his ass.

Check the Business Week report on this posted earlier in the thread.