Can the US afford that $5tr?

[Saigon]

Charles -

No, he didn't specify.

And let's be honest here - any real conservative would be horrified by a presidential candidate who seems more concerned with populist tax cuts than he does with stabiizing the economy and paying down the sovereign debt.

For four years conservatives have (rightly) complained about spending - and yet here we see the same posters lining up to defend what amounts to a $5 trillion dollar spending spree - with no details on who is picking up the tab.

Will it be funded by increased economic acitivity?

In the short term, no it won't be. If for not other reason than because your export markets are struggling to.

And no, I have never swallowed Obama's Kool Aid either. I'm just amazed that those who laughed at the adoration 4 years ago are now doing exactly the samething.

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

Try reading the Wasihngton Post article before whining about it.

 

[Saigon]

The 5 trillion number came from democrats. They said it, they heard it, that makes it true. But it doesn't really.

Following the democrat plan the economy stagnates at its current plateau so there is no place to get money but by raising taxes. Republicans would grow the economy and get more people into the workforce to pay taxes. Democrats believe the more people on welfare the better things are and the economy doesn't need to grow. Welfare is a perpetual motion machine. It's enough to stimulate the economy all by itself. It's just not true.

And you said EXACTLY the same thing about the 47% statement last week, didn't you?

Shall I post your comment on how that was true?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Actually no - this figure was put forward by more than one research company and quoted widely in the media here.

Of course you can say the international media are pasrt of some evil conspiracy, but I think it is more likely that the $5 trillion figure is fairly accurate.

Hey genius, welcome to the real world. "Widely quoted in the media" and "put forth by more than one( Which research companies? Name them) research company" doesn't mean SHIT.

Once and for all the $5 trillion tax cut is a myth, a lie. It never happened.
Cut the bullshit.
This and other items the Obama and campaign and democrat operatives in the main stream media are simply smear to get people to stop looking at Obama's record which speaks volumes in it's incompetency.
This campaign is going to be about Obama's record. Not anything else.

 

[Oddball]

Oddball -

Try reading the Wasihngton Post article before whining about it.

Sorry, I don't waste the time of day on shameless party hack propagandists.

GIGO, pal.

PS...Try using the quote function, m'kay?

 

[Katzndogz]

Charles -

No, he didn't specify.

And let's be honest here - any real conservative would be horrified by a presidential candidate who seems more concerned with populist tax cuts than he does with stabiizing the economy and paying down the sovereign debt.

For four years conservatives have (rightly) complained about spending - and yet here we see the same posters lining up to defend what amounts to a $5 trillion dollar spending spree - with no details on who is picking up the tab.

Will it be funded by increased economic acitivity?

In the short term, no it won't be. If for not other reason than because your export markets are struggling to.

And no, I have never swallowed Obama's Kool Aid either. I'm just amazed that those who laughed at the adoration 4 years ago are now doing exactly the samething.

You are confusing not raising taxes with a tax cut. It's not the same thing.

If you pay $100.00 in taxes now and democrats want to raise your taxes by $50.00, not raising those taxes doesn't mean you got a $50.00 tax cut.

 

[Oddball]

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

Actually no - this figure was put forward by more than one research company and quoted widely in the media here.

Of course you can say the international media are pasrt of some evil conspiracy, but I think it is more likely that the $5 trillion figure is fairly accurate.

Hey genius, welcome to the real world. "Widely quoted in the media" and "put forth by more than one( Which research companies? Name them) research company" doesn't mean SHIT.

Once and for all the $5 trillion tax cut is a myth, a lie. It never happened.
Cut the bullshit.
This and other items the Obama and campaign and democrat operatives in the main stream media are simply smear to get people to stop looking at Obama's record which speaks volumes in it's incompetency.
This campaign is going to be about Obama's record. Not anything else.

But...but...but...but...but...Washington Post op-ed!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually no - this figure was put forward by more than one research company and quoted widely in the media here.

Of course you can say the international media are pasrt of some evil conspiracy, but I think it is more likely that the $5 trillion figure is fairly accurate.

LOL...I know that it's a figure that's been "quoted widely in the media", Saigon because it's the figure that the Obama Camp has been feeding them to quote. You think the 5 trillion figure is "fairly accurate"? How noble of you considering you're discussing something that's a number made up by progressives.

Another con with a bad case of dipshititis. You can't cut taxes nearly 30% and think they will be revenue neutral without putting an end to a massive amount of deductions and credits. Since Romney can't tell us what deductions and credits he plans to put an end to, we have to assume that revenues will drop by close to $5 trillion over ten years. Secondly, the only way to remove enough deductions and credits is to go after the ones that the middle class and lower income earners count on the most. This is transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. Anyone who doesn't see this is brain dead. Cons trying to con us again.

What drives me nuts about stupid ideas like this is that many who will support this nonsense will be on the losing end if it goes through.

There is no tax cut proposal. Romney simply intends to keep the tax rates at their current levels.
Joe Biden in a speech last week said the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire and that he favors the $1 trillion dollar INCREASE because ...this is rich...The middle class should not be burdened by the wealthy getting to keep all that money..
The man is an idiot.
First off the amount of dollars possessed by one has ZERO to do with anyone else. And second, if the Bush tax cuts expire EVERYONE'S taxes will be increased.
This is just another example of the Obama/Biden camp continuing their false support of the middle class( Biden said we were being buried under HIS and OBAMA'S watch) and class warfare.
Obama/Biden is looking weak even with the tilted and biased polls.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Democrats didn't seem to give a crap about all the
deficit spending and debt with Obama running the show...

I think what you mean is that many may not admit it - but I think it is a given that any thinking American, regardless of their politics, has been concerned about the deficit for at least a decade now.

This does not explain why people would now back a scheme to make the deficit worse.

Do you believe it is possible for a nation to tax itself into prosperity?

 

[Rocko]

Saigon - learn to use the quote function.

 

[IHBF]

Can we afford SIX trillion in more debt?


It's hilarious that Dems feign concern about this supposed five trillion when Obama added SIX TRILLION to the debt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Immanuel -

I'm not gulllible to believe everything the media say is a lie. It's a case of being sensible with selecting media sources.

This is from Businessweek:

I asked the experts at the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The Tax Policy Center has been accused by some Republicans of being unfair to Romney, but its goal is to be nonpartisan and its methodology is straightforward: It just adds up the numbers.

Romney issued a more aggressive tax-cutting plan in March that would cut individual income tax rates an additional 20 percent. It involved, as Obama correctly said, approximately $5 trillion in reduced tax receipts over 10 years.

But the numbers don’t add up. An August analysis by the Tax Policy Center found it was mathematically impossible (PDF) for Romney to simultaneously cut taxes on upper-income households, keep middle-income tax burdens from rising, and prevent an increase in the budget deficit.

The Real Story About Romney

WHAT?!!! The Tax Policy Center is a pro high tax pro big government organization.
The Urban Institute is a advocacy organization which supports cities with the idea of taxing suburban dwellers to support nearby urban centers.
You say you select your sources carefully. Ok, go ahead and post the research you've done regarding your post.
You should easily prove the organizations you used above are not biased toward liberal/progressive agendas.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Here is an idea.

Just don't spend 5 trillion dollars we don't have.


You do realize that government is NOT entitled to an income, right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Good grief, here we go again. This is like the phony Big Bird hysteria.

A) It's not a five trillion dollar tax cut, even Wasserman-Schultz or one of those other whackos have already admitted this. It was a number made up entirely by guesses. It's not a five trillion dollar fucking tax cut, that was debunked long ago. God damn this board is nuts.

B) The Democrats are simply mystified by dynamic scoring. It's like a genetic thing with them, they just don't see it. They've convinced themselves that a tax cut somehow takes that money out of the economy. The idea of a tax cut is that the saved funds (which don't "belong" to the government in the first fucking place) stimulate spending and growth, thereby making the resulting economic activity larger than the tax cut on a macro level.

I'm not even freaking voting for Romney. I'm not even a big fan of his tax plan. But fer chrissake, one of the these days my head is gonna freakin' explode from the simplistic, intellectually dishonest, obtuse crap I read here.

.

It doesn't matter....
Here is the liberal mindset...."It's not a lie if you believe it"..
In other words, if one keeps repeating the lie, eventually someone or a group of people will start to believe the lie is actually the truth.
This is the game liberal play.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.


A) It's not a five trillion dollar tax cut, even Wasserman-Schultz or one of those other whackos have already admitted this. It was a number made up entirely by guesses. It's not a five trillion dollar fucking tax cut, that was debunked long ago. God damn this board is nuts.


.

Please the post from Business Week above yours. Apparently they disagree with you.

NO!...Who gives a fuck what some dope at Business Week has to say?
This is Romney's campaign, not some columnist at BW who has an interest in seeing Obama get a second term.

 

[Darkwind]

LOL...I know that it's a figure that's been "quoted widely in the media", Saigon because it's the figure that the Obama Camp has been feeding them to quote. You think the 5 trillion figure is "fairly accurate"? How noble of you considering you're discussing something that's a number made up by progressives.

Another con with a bad case of dipshititis. You can't cut taxes nearly 30% and think they will be revenue neutral without putting an end to a massive amount of deductions and credits. Since Romney can't tell us what deductions and credits he plans to put an end to, we have to assume that revenues will drop by close to $5 trillion over ten years. Secondly, the only way to remove enough deductions and credits is to go after the ones that the middle class and lower income earners count on the most. This is transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super wealthy. Anyone who doesn't see this is brain dead. Cons trying to con us again.

What drives me nuts about stupid ideas like this is that many who will support this nonsense will be on the losing end if it goes through.

There is no tax cut proposal. Romney simply intends to keep the tax rates at their current levels.
Joe Biden in a speech last week said the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire and that he favors the $1 trillion dollar INCREASE because ...this is rich...The middle class should not be burdened by the wealthy getting to keep all that money..
The man is an idiot.
First off the amount of dollars possessed by one has ZERO to do with anyone else. And second, if the Bush tax cuts expire EVERYONE'S taxes will be increased.
This is just another example of the Obama/Biden camp continuing their false support of the middle class( Biden said we were being buried under HIS and OBAMA'S watch) and class warfare.
Obama/Biden is looking weak even with the tilted and biased polls.

It is even more fundamental.

Biden says that the middle class won't have to bear the burden if the rich are taxed more. But nowhere does he say he will lower the taxes of the middle class.

This means that the rich will be taxed more, but that the burden of the middle class will remain exactly the same.

Remember, in context, burden is defined by the amount of oppressive taxation the government currently confiscates.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Business Week, the Tax Policy Center, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute all lean left, and I hope you know that

Oh, right.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that your own politics have become so incredibly extreme that Franco himself would consider you too right wing for words?

Similar findings appeared in a dozen different media sources around the world, most of which are simply not left wing by any definition.

btw. I think most people understand that we are talking about a net loss from the tax cuts.

Ok...You are done here. When anyone quotes the far left wing moonbat Franco, they run out of gas.
You have surrendered any credibility you may have had. In fact, you barely have a right to an opinion.
You are history pal. Choose another hobby

 

[Toro]

So, put another way Saigon, no, we probably can't afford Romney's tax plan. But we can't afford another four years of Obama either. We have already seen what Obama can do. He has been poor. I say we give Romney a shot. It's hard to believe he'd be much worse.

It's worth reading the Washington Post article I linked earlier - they said Obama had been poor - and Romney would be ruinous.

And the WSJ says another four years of Obama would be ruinous for the economy and Romney much better. So who are you going to believe?

You appear to be holding Romney to a different standard than Obama. Obama promised he would halve the deficit at the end of his first term, yet

- we ran $1,000,000,000,000+ deficits every year
- the United States was downgraded for the first year in its history
- one budget was passed over four years
- dismissed Simpson-Bowles, the commission he created, virtually out of hand.

That is gross incompetence.

If someone told you four years ago that if Obama would be elected, this would be the result, one would consider Obama an absolute failure by his own pronouncements.

I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and say the deficits are not all on him and that he was dealt a tough hand. But he has not shown any ability to lead or offer a deficit plan that has a chance of passing. You can put up any plan you want, but if you can't pass it, what's the point?

Obama failed. Why would someone choose failure for a second term? The WaPost says "Oooooh, Romney is really scary!" Retroactively, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Obama has already been scary. Time to give someone else a shot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, put another way Saigon, no, we probably can't afford Romney's tax plan. But we can't afford another four years of Obama either. We have already seen what Obama can do. He has been poor. I say we give Romney a shot. It's hard to believe he'd be much worse.

It's worth reading the Washington Post article I linked earlier - they said Obama had been poor - and Romney would be ruinous.

And the WSJ says another four years of Obama would be ruinous for the economy and Romney much better. So who are you going to believe?

You appear to be holding Romney to a different standard than Obama. Obama promised he would halve the deficit at the end of his first term, yet

- we ran $1,000,000,000,000+ deficits every year
- the United States was downgraded for the first year in its history
- one budget was passed over four years
- dismissed Simpson-Bowles, the commission he created, virtually out of hand.

That is gross incompetence.

If someone told you four years ago that if Obama would be elected, this would be the result, one would consider Obama an absolute failure by his own pronouncements.

I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and say the deficits are not all on him and that he was dealt a tough hand. But he has not shown any ability to lead or offer a deficit plan that has a chance of passing. You can put up any plan you want, but if you can't pass it, what's the point?

Obama failed. Why would someone choose failure for a second term? The WaPost says "Oooooh, Romney is really scary!" Retroactively, we can say with a high degree of certainty that Obama has already been scary. Time to give someone else a shot.

^

/thread

 

[Oldstyle]

Four years ago I told people that I had grave misgivings about Barack Obama because when I looked at his record I simply didn't "see" anything that made me think he was qualified for the job as Chief Executive of the United States.

Four years later my misgivings have turned out to be well founded (and trust me I'm not patting myself on the back because it was pretty obvious that was the case back in 2008...I'm not some "master political prognosticator") and once again the country is being asked to elect a man who is unqualified for the job of President. I find it hard to fathom that there are intelligent people out there that CAN'T see that a mistake was made in 2008. The truth is, the Democratic nominee that year should have been Hilary Clinton and I think even hardcore progressives realize that. But now you progressives are "stuck" with Barack Obama whether you want him or not and if he's successful in his reelection bid, then the country is stuck with him as well...subjecting us to yet another four years with no leadership coming from the Oval Office.

My question is this...

What were you people thinking when you elected a Junior Senator with zero legislative ability and zero executive ability? How the heck did we end up with Barry as our President?