Can the US afford that $5tr?

[bripat9643]

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.

Of course you're not a "liberal", Saigon! You just come here and make posts that consistently support liberal positions. (eye-roll) What's amusing is that no liberal has admitted to being a liberal for years now. You all refer to yourselves as either "progressives" or if you're REALLY on the "down low", you declare yourselves to be "independents". Funny how you guys need to keep changing your identity whereas conservatives remain conservatives.

When they're running for office they're all for keeping taxes low and cutting government spending. Then when they get into office, the show their liberal cloven hoofs.

 

[Saigon]

So according to this study, loopholes that need to be close would only need to be 40% of the total cost of the tax cuts.

And you honestly think that is likely?

Bcause 40% of $5 trillion is not exactly a figure that we often see with the word "only" before it.

 

[Saigon]

Of course you're not a "liberal", Saigon! You just come here and make posts that consistently support liberal positions. (eye-roll) What's amusing is that no liberal has admitted to being a liberal for years now. You all refer to yourselves as either "progressives" or if you're REALLY on the "down low", you declare yourselves to be "independents". Funny how you guys need to keep changing your identity whereas conservatives remain conservatives.

I have never used the words 'liberal', 'independent' or 'progressive' to describe myself or anyone else.

You forget that these words are only used in the US.

 

[The Infidel]

btw, I am not a "progressive".

Nope..... You're a dumb ass

 

[Inthemiddle]

Of course you're not a "liberal", Saigon! You just come here and make posts that consistently support liberal positions. (eye-roll) What's amusing is that no liberal has admitted to being a liberal for years now. You all refer to yourselves as either "progressives" or if you're REALLY on the "down low", you declare yourselves to be "independents". Funny how you guys need to keep changing your identity whereas conservatives remain conservatives.

Actually, the problem is that most conservatives on this board seem to think that the world operates on an "this-extreme-or-liberal" mentality. On this board, unless you're stark raving mad with extreme conservatism, drunk off the sweat of Rush and Beck, you're going to be called a liberal by someone. When someone like me can be called a liberal when discussing immigration, then that's a pretty clear sign that most on this board are suffering from all kinds of derangements.

 

[Saigon]

Actually, the problem is that most conservatives on this board seem to think that the world operates on an "this-extreme-or-liberal" mentality. On this board, unless you're stark raving mad with extreme conservatism, drunk off the sweat of Rush and Beck, you're going to be called a liberal by someone. When someone like me can be called a liberal when discussing immigration, then that's a pretty clear sign that most on this board are suffering from all kinds of derangements.

I totally agree.

There also seems to be a tendency to assume that the entire world operates according to the same blinded loyalty to party that some posters here operate on.

Many of our posters here, both GOP and Deomcrat, will defend a party position they do not actually support because the alternative would be to step outside the safety of being in the group and to think as an individual.

It reminds me of that Third Wave experiment where a high school teacher showed how easily any group of people can be taught to operate as members of a disciplined tribe, devoid of individuality or individual thought.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course you're not a "liberal", Saigon! You just come here and make posts that consistently support liberal positions. (eye-roll) What's amusing is that no liberal has admitted to being a liberal for years now. You all refer to yourselves as either "progressives" or if you're REALLY on the "down low", you declare yourselves to be "independents". Funny how you guys need to keep changing your identity whereas conservatives remain conservatives.

Actually, the problem is that most conservatives on this board seem to think that the world operates on an "this-extreme-or-liberal" mentality. On this board, unless you're stark raving mad with extreme conservatism, drunk off the sweat of Rush and Beck, you're going to be called a liberal by someone. When someone like me can be called a liberal when discussing immigration, then that's a pretty clear sign that most on this board are suffering from all kinds of derangements.

The typical lament of a libturd who doesn't want to admit what he is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where will the $5 trillion to find Romney's tax plan come from?

Fairly obviously it isn't all going to come from closing the odd loophole....

Can the US really afford to borrow another $5 trillion?

One does not have to "fund" tax cuts.

Tax cuts do not need to be "paid for"

Spending needs to be funded.

So the simple answer is that if revenue decreases then spending must decrease.

Since the fucking corrupt politicians have what is tantamount to a shopping addiction we have to force them into rehab.

 

[naturegirl]

Where will the $5 trillion to find Romney's tax plan come from?

Fairly obviously it isn't all going to come from closing the odd loophole....

Can the US really afford to borrow another $5 trillion?

One does not have to "fund" tax cuts.

Tax cuts do not need to be "paid for"

Spending needs to be funded.

So the simple answer is that if revenue decreases then spending must decrease.

Since the fucking corrupt politicians have what is tantamount to a shopping addiction we have to force them into rehab.

 

[Saigon]

Skull Pilot -

So you are saying that Romney can cut $5 trillion from current spending - while also ploughing more into defence?

Where do you think the $5 trillion cuts will come from, exactly?

 

[Mac1958]

.

So I see that we're still pretending that Romney is pushing five trillion in net tax cuts.

I also notice we're still pretending that Romney wants to kill PBS and Big Bird off.

And I don't even like Romney.

I've run out of adjectives. I really don't understand what's going on here. This board is an alternate universe.

.

 

[Meathead]

Where do you think the $5 trillion cuts will come from, exactly?

Tax cuts do not "come" from anywhere. Taxes and tax increases come from taxpayers. You really aren't very bright, are you?

 

[Saigon]

Where do you think the $5 trillion cuts will come from, exactly?

Tax cuts do not "come" from anywhere. Taxes and tax increases come from taxpayers. You really aren't very bright, are you?

You misunderstood my post.

What I meant was - what services do you think will be cut to make up the $5 trillion?

 

[Mac1958]

Where do you think the $5 trillion cuts will come from, exactly?

Tax cuts do not "come" from anywhere. Taxes and tax increases come from taxpayers. You really aren't very bright, are you?

You misunderstood my post.

What I meant was - what services do you think will be cut to make up the $5 trillion?

Saigon, perhaps I've missed something.

Why are you continuing to say that Romney is proposing five trillion in net tax cuts?

.

 

[Saigon]

Mac -

I haven't said that, and I haven't seen anyone else say it either. So, yes, I'd say you are missing something.

I think if you go back and read either the WaPo or Business Week stories it should be fairly clear.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac -

I haven't said that, and I haven't seen anyone else say it either. So, yes, I'd say you are missing something.

I think if you go back and read either the WaPo or Business Week stories it should be fairly clear.

Saigon, in the post directly before my last post, you said:

"What I meant was - what services do you think will be cut to make up the $5 trillion?"

Please explain. Fully.

.

 

[Saigon]

Mac -

Sure thing.

As I understand it, the total cost of Romney's proposed tax cuts would amount to around $5 trillion over 10 years, thus the total tax revenue will fall by $5 trillion.

We understand that Romney intends to close some tax loopholes to bridge that gap, but thus far has not anounced what they will be. We also know that he is pledging more money for the military.

I can't see that any loopholes are going to bring in anything like $5 trillion, and if another $2 trillion goes into the military, the US could well face a net deficit or somewhere around $5 trillion.

It may well be that the loophole closures bring in $1 trillion or so, but either way you cut it, it still looks to me like a gigantic hole in the ground.

We can stand around all day and argue that the net shortfall might be only $4 trillion or $3.5 trillion if the tax loophole closures are effective - but I don't see any of those figures as being good news.

The Washington Post called the measures "ruinous" and I tend to agree.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac -

Sure thing.

As I understand it, the total cost of Romney's proposed tax cuts would amount to around $5 trillion over 10 years, thus the total tax revenue will fall by $5 trillion.

We understand that Romney intends to close some tax loopholes to bridge that gap, but thus far has not anounced what they will be. We also know that he is pledging more money for the military.

I can't see that any loopholes are going to bring in anything like $5 trillion, and if another $2 trillion goes into the military, the US could well face a net deficit or somewhere around $5 trillion.

It may well be that the loophole closures bring in $1 trillion or so, but either way you cut it, it still looks to me like a gigantic hole in the ground.

We can stand around all day and argue that the net shortfall might be only $4 trillion or $3.5 trillion if the tax loophole closures are effective - but I don't see any of those figures as being good news.

The Washington Post called the measures "ruinous" and I tend to agree.

So you're admitting that Romney is proposing closing loopholes, whatever the hell they are, that would make the tax cuts less than five trillion.

You're also putting yourself in the position of determining how much the closing of loopholes will effect the five trillion, as if you have some inside information. Still, you admit that Romney has said that the loopholes he will close will make up for the five trillion.

And you continue to write things like, and I quote again, "What I meant was - what services do you think will be cut to make up the $5 trillion?"

Do you believe that such clear intellectual dishonesty is helpful, or is this just a game for you?

Please answer that.

Now, so that there is absolutely no doubt in your mind, Romney is proposing that the five trillion (and more) in his tax cuts would be "paid for" - I don't like that term - in essentially two ways:

1. The closing of loopholes, whatever the hell they're supposed to be.

2. Increased tax receipts based on the increased economic activity caused by his proposals.

I cannot make it more freakin' clear than that.

Now, if you want to argue that the loopholes (about which you admit to know nothing) and Romney's projections on increased economic activity are wrong, fine. I would say that pointing at one article from a left-leaning magazine based on studies from left-leaning groups is pretty weak, but I know how partisan political rhetoric is.

Please answer the question I have in bold, and please let me know if there is absolutely any question in your mind about Romney's "plan".

Thanks.

.

 

[Toro]

So according to this study, loopholes that need to be close would only need to be 40% of the total cost of the tax cuts.

And you honestly think that is likely?

Bcause 40% of $5 trillion is not exactly a figure that we often see with the word "only" before it.

Why do you think it is not likely?

40% of $5 trillion over a decade is $200 billion a year. The stimulus alone provided over $200 billion in tax cuts. The tax code is so full of holes, $200 billion p.a. in loopholes won't be hard to find.

 

[Saigon]

Mac -

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

As I said about 3 pages back - I think everyone who is even vaguely interested in this story knows the $5 trillion figure refers to a kind of worse case scenario.

We can't talk about any other figure because Romney hasn't told us what the loopholes (and their potential value) might be. If he eventually does so and we end up with a shortfall of $3 trillion then I guess most of us will use that figure.