It's Official--Romney and Ryan for 2012!!!

[georgephillip]

And this relates to how much you think oil companies should be required to pay in taxes, how?

Romney has not had any salary or wages for some time. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated all of his salary received from the Olympics. Other than what was allowed for a personal IRA or 401K--we are all eligible for tax deferment on those--he paid taxes on his investments and he and his family now live off the investments he has made over the years and those are taxed at the same capital gains rate that we all pay on non tax-deferred capital gains.

This is precisely the reason Warren Buffet pays at a lower rate than his secretary.

I won't be surprised if Romney refuses his salary as President if he is elected in 2012.

We ALL have the ability to build a retirment account that will allow us leisure and freedom later on, and we will be taxed on capital gains from those accounts at the exact same rate that Romney and Buffet pay.

So again. Back to those oil companies since you brought it up. How much do you think we should be entitled to of what they earn?

It's my understanding Romney's Olympics relied more on US Government funds than any other Olympics ever. In my opinion he should be paying closer to 90% on his unearned income than the current 15% rate that Republicans AND Democrats have gifted their 1% employers.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

How 'bout we tax 'em into extinction (and prison), JP?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be sure to mention that to the Wall Street parasites and their political enablers who recently got richer from the greatest transfer of private debt into public debt in history.

Please, tell me more about this transfer of debt.

Ask your good buddy, Hank.
You two got that Great Chicago Carbon Bubble working yet?

You made the claim, you tell me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's my understanding Romney's Olympics relied more on US Government funds than any other Olympics ever. In my opinion he should be paying closer to 90% on his unearned income than the current 15% rate that Republicans AND Democrats have gifted their 1% employers.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

How 'bout we tax 'em into extinction (and prison), JP?

Do that to all the rich people and your welfare check will bounce.

 

[georgephillip]

And this relates to how much you think oil companies should be required to pay in taxes, how?

Romney has not had any salary or wages for some time. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated all of his salary received from the Olympics. Other than what was allowed for a personal IRA or 401K--we are all eligible for tax deferment on those--he paid taxes on his investments and he and his family now live off the investments he has made over the years and those are taxed at the same capital gains rate that we all pay on non tax-deferred capital gains.

This is precisely the reason Warren Buffet pays at a lower rate than his secretary.

I won't be surprised if Romney refuses his salary as President if he is elected in 2012.

We ALL have the ability to build a retirment account that will allow us leisure and freedom later on, and we will be taxed on capital gains from those accounts at the exact same rate that Romney and Buffet pay.

So again. Back to those oil companies since you brought it up. How much do you think we should be entitled to of what they earn?

It's my understanding Romney's Olympics relied more on US Government funds than any other Olympics ever. In my opinion he should be paying closer to 90% on his unearned income than the current 15% rate that Republicans AND Democrats have gifted their 1% employers.

The money people earn does not belong to politicians with greedy eyeballs on it for their edification in power and prestige. The money people earn belongs to them. The idea that redistribution of wealth is necessary is a Marxist hammer to consolidate power in hands that honestly, didn't earn it.

Politicians give themselves a bad name by hissy-fitting about not having as much money as somebody else. And while no one is watching the budget, there's a Nancy Pelosi sticking in her thumb and pulling out a tax-free 100% guaranteed loan plum for a member of her family. Or two. Or three. And we're talking not plums, we're talking billions of dollars in treasury bilking done by politicians.

Stop "choosing" between political hacks like Pelosi or Paul Ryan if you're tired of your tax dollars fattening the bottom lines of their families.

I think you're also conflating money people earn with money they bribe government for.

The richest Americans have been bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax and trade policies that have turned "the land of opportunity" into an America that has the highest level of economic inequality of any advanced country.

Fully 93% of income growth during the 2009-10 "recovery" has been captured by the richest 1% of income earners. Did they earn it, or did they bribe Pelosi and Ryan for it?

You'll never find out by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in your voting booth.

Joseph E. Stiglitz | The Price of Inequality

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's my understanding Romney's Olympics relied more on US Government funds than any other Olympics ever. In my opinion he should be paying closer to 90% on his unearned income than the current 15% rate that Republicans AND Democrats have gifted their 1% employers.

The money people earn does not belong to politicians with greedy eyeballs on it for their edification in power and prestige. The money people earn belongs to them. The idea that redistribution of wealth is necessary is a Marxist hammer to consolidate power in hands that honestly, didn't earn it.

Politicians give themselves a bad name by hissy-fitting about not having as much money as somebody else. And while no one is watching the budget, there's a Nancy Pelosi sticking in her thumb and pulling out a tax-free 100% guaranteed loan plum for a member of her family. Or two. Or three. And we're talking not plums, we're talking billions of dollars in treasury bilking done by politicians.

Stop "choosing" between political hacks like Pelosi or Paul Ryan if you're tired of your tax dollars fattening the bottom lines of their families.

I think you're also conflating money people earn with money they bribe government for.

The richest Americans have been bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax and trade policies that have turned "the land of opportunity" into an America that has the highest level of economic inequality of any advanced country.

Fully 93% of income growth during the 2009-10 "recovery" has been captured by the richest 1% of income earners. Did they earn it, or did they bribe Pelosi and Ryan for it?

You'll never find out by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in your voting booth.

Joseph E. Stiglitz | The Price of Inequality

In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth.

There is probably a less useful stat out there than this one, it would just take me a while to think of it.

 

[georgephillip]

Probably a lot less time than it will take you to earn a Nobel Prize in Economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the “recovery” of 2009-2010, how much of the income growth was captured by left handed relief pitchers? How much by right handed designated hitters from Latin American countries? How much by red-headed circus performers?

 

[Listening]

Win or lose, Romney just put the big issues out front.

Something Obama has been unwilling to do for four years.

Biden does not have a clue as to what an issue is...he probably thinks it's what he uses to blow his nose.

 

[georgephillip]

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes.

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes.

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?

Two words suffice: tax cuts."

LOL!

From Wikipedia......

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion.[31]

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10-year revenue loss....$2.9 trillion.
Let's see the liberal math that explains how "losing" $290 billion a year causes a swing from a predicted surplus of $800 billion to an actual deficit of $1.3 trillion.

 

[Listening]

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes.

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?

Please bring forth the numbers and the math that show how we got to the deficit and how it was just the result of tax cuts.

The math...not percentages and not just some of the math.

 

[georgephillip]

"A New York Times article claims the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

"CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deficit increase wasn't due to tax cuts alone.
There were also a pair of illegal and unfunded invasions and occupations, at least one of which is ongoing.
And, of course, one giant credit/housing bubble that POPPED and required US taxpayers to socialize the cost of private Wall Street losses.

 

[Listening]

"A New York Times article claims the full Bush-era tax cuts were the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the past decade, reducing revenues by about $1.8 trillion between 2002 and 2009.[26]

"CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) added about $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2001 and 2011, excluding interest."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deficit increase wasn't due to tax cuts alone.
There were also a pair of illegal and unfunded invasions and occupations, at least one of which is ongoing.
And, of course, one giant credit/housing bubble that POPPED and required US taxpayers to socialize the cost of private Wall Street losses.

First, I asked for the math. If you are beholden to it, you should be able to share it.

Second, thank you for allowing (without math how will we know) that it might not just be the tax cuts.

There is no getting around the fact that spending should have been cut too. But, there is also the issue of the projections made in 2001 and how those assumptions used to project the "surplus" might not have panned out given the economics slump of the last four years.

 

[georgephillip]

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes.

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?

Two words suffice: tax cuts."

LOL!

From Wikipedia......

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion.[31]

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10-year revenue loss....$2.9 trillion.
Let's see the liberal math that explains how "losing" $290 billion a year causes a swing from a predicted surplus of $800 billion to an actual deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Which ten-year period are you talking about?
2001-2010 or 2011-2020?

"In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would "tax cuts" be one of those big Romney issues?

"It's January 25, 2001, the first week of the Bush presidency and more than half a year before the September 11 attacks. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testifies before the Senate Budget Committee, asserting:

"'If current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011. The emerging key fiscal policy need is to address the implications of maintaining surpluses.'

"The 2011 fiscal year ended with a $1.3-trillion deficit. How did America go from a state of 'burgeoning federal surpluses' (in Greenspan's words in 2001) to 'extraordinary financial crisis' (the way he put it in 2010) in just one decade? Two words suffice: tax cuts."

Economic Rapture Might Be Around the Corner

Mitt seems to be in favor of fighting two wars with other people's blood and paying for those conflicts with other people's debt and taxes.

Do we really need another rich, White hypocrite in DC?

Two words suffice: tax cuts."

LOL!

From Wikipedia......

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has estimated the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion.[31]

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10-year revenue loss....$2.9 trillion.
Let's see the liberal math that explains how "losing" $290 billion a year causes a swing from a predicted surplus of $800 billion to an actual deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Which ten-year period are you talking about?
2001-2010 or 2011-2020?

"In August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, comprising $2.65 trillion in foregone tax revenue plus another $0.66 trillion for interest and debt service costs."

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which ten-year period are you talking about?
2001-2010 or 2011-2020?

2011-2020.

 

[Foxfyre]

I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit. The deficit is not caused from taxes. The deficit is caused by spending.

Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues. The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues. the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues. In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.

The economy does not increase perpetually but the right kind of tax cut will increase economic activity that will eventually top out. But the new 'normal' is generally at a higher level than the old one. Of course every tax cut does not generate economic activity--tax cuts for the 'lower income' citizen will definitely have a negative effect on treasury revenues because it will have negligible effect on increased economic activity and is too quickly wiped out by inflation. And of course there is a limit to how much economic activity can be generated via tax reductions.

But the fact remains. Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits. Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.

 

[BluePhantom]

But the fact remains. Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits. Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.

Absolutely correct. Bingo! On the nose.....unfortunately such logic is completely ignored by those who have an entitlement mentality. Remember...all money belongs to the government (according to them) and our earnings are merely gifts that we are permitted to have according to Washington's good graces.

 

[Borillar]

I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit. The deficit is not caused from taxes. The deficit is caused by spending.

Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues. The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues. the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues. In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.

The economy does not increase perpetually but the right kind of tax cut will increase economic activity that will eventually top out. But the new 'normal' is generally at a higher level than the old one. Of course every tax cut does not generate economic activity--tax cuts for the 'lower income' citizen will definitely have a negative effect on treasury revenues because it will have negligible effect on increased economic activity and is too quickly wiped out by inflation. And of course there is a limit to how much economic activity can be generated via tax reductions.

But the fact remains. Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits. Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.

I suppose the question then becomes what spending needs to be cut? The right is eager to throw out the social safety net. The left wants to cut military spending and corporate welfare. Both sides have their sacred cows. There needs to be adequate revenue to pay for these things plus service and pay off the debt. How do you do that by cutting revenue?

 

[Foxfyre]

I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit. The deficit is not caused from taxes. The deficit is caused by spending.

Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues. The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues. the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues. In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.

The economy does not increase perpetually but the right kind of tax cut will increase economic activity that will eventually top out. But the new 'normal' is generally at a higher level than the old one. Of course every tax cut does not generate economic activity--tax cuts for the 'lower income' citizen will definitely have a negative effect on treasury revenues because it will have negligible effect on increased economic activity and is too quickly wiped out by inflation. And of course there is a limit to how much economic activity can be generated via tax reductions.

But the fact remains. Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits. Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.

I suppose the question then becomes what spending needs to be cut? The right is eager to throw out the social safety net. The left wants to cut military spending and corporate welfare. Both sides have their sacred cows. There needs to be adequate revenue to pay for these things plus service and pay off the debt. How do you do that by cutting revenue?

Not at all. The question then becomes what does the Federal government HAVE to do with the revenues it receives and what can the Federal government leave to the states and/or private sector to do? Obviously, if the Federal government only does what it HAS to do per Constitutional specifications, it doesn't need anywhere near the amount of money it spends and would much more easily balance a budget without draining the economy of precious resources.

Which coincidentally the Ryan economic philosophy addresses.

 

[BluePhantom]

I simply fail to see how a tax cut adds to the deficit. The deficit is not caused from taxes. The deficit is caused by spending.

Most of the projections of how much a tax cut will increase the deficit is a presumption that the tax cut will have no effect on the overall economy but will reduce treasury revenues. The Kennedy tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The Reagan tax cuts did not reduce revenues. the Clinton tax cuts did not reduce revenues. The G.W. Bush tax cuts did not reduce revenues. In every one of these cases, treasury revenues increased because the carefully designed reductions in tax rates stimulated economic activity.

The economy does not increase perpetually but the right kind of tax cut will increase economic activity that will eventually top out. But the new 'normal' is generally at a higher level than the old one. Of course every tax cut does not generate economic activity--tax cuts for the 'lower income' citizen will definitely have a negative effect on treasury revenues because it will have negligible effect on increased economic activity and is too quickly wiped out by inflation. And of course there is a limit to how much economic activity can be generated via tax reductions.

But the fact remains. Taxes do not increase or decrease deficits. Excess spending over treasury revenues is what causes deficits and adds to the national debt.

I suppose the question then becomes what spending needs to be cut? The right is eager to throw out the social safety net. The left wants to cut military spending and corporate welfare. Both sides have their sacred cows. There needs to be adequate revenue to pay for these things plus service and pay off the debt. How do you do that by cutting revenue?

Not at all. The question then becomes what does the Federal government HAVE to do with the revenues it receives and what can the Federal government leave to the states and/or private sector to do? Obviously, if the Federal government only does what it HAS to do per Constitutional specifications, it doesn't need anywhere near the amount of money it spends and would much more easily balance a budget without draining the economy of precious resources.

Which coincidentally the Ryan economic philosophy addresses.

Someone give me an amen!! Somebody say "hallelujah"!!! SOMEBODY RUN!!!!