What part of "How about the one where Obama promised 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue raised?
Now it's 4 dollars in revenue for every non-existent 1 dollar in spending cuts."
"Revenue is revenue" OK. A self-evident equivalency. "simply spending less does not increase revenue." Possibly, but so what? livestrongest was talking about a major flip by Obama, yes?
We should have a balanced budget with tax raes that encourage entrepreneurship. Have you seen all the people leaving France because of tax rates. Even in the US people are leaving. Did you see Apple co-founder is applying for Australian citizenship?
But here's the thing Live. Your first sentence sounds great on paper. Nobody would oppose that. But after thirty years of lowering taxes, increasing productivity of American workers and keeping a very tight lid on wages, we are still in an economic dump. We have a "listed" tax rate and then a REAL tax rate for everyone that is frequently lower. I'm not trying to be a mocking jerk here, I just don't see how our current tax rates can be called adversarial toward entrepreneurs. Comparisons to other countries are a little specious. Every country has it's own set of problems and should be viewed as such.
My other problem with the who tax war right now is that Republicans have chosen to make their stand NOW after decades of running up debt and decades of helping to create an environment where workers have taken drastic steps backward. Make no mistake, Clinton signed a lot of deregulation and trade deals himself, so he is certainly no saint. Still, after erasing and ending what was a budget surplus, after refusing to raise the taxes after going to war, NOW apparently is the time the base needs to be broadened in order to get those slackers who don't pay taxes to "get some skin in the game". As if, somehow, they were such big recipients of the spending spree that has gone on since 2000.
This may have been the most fact-free/policy-free presidential campaign I've ever seen - Especially from the Romney side, and I think it was a big factor in handing Obama, the most beatable incumbent since Carter, a relatively easy victory simply by letting him off the hook - by never forcing him to defend his policies.
See, the "Obama bailed out Chrysler, and now they've outsourced the building of Jeeps to China" is a perfect example. It was such a whopper, that Obama never had to defend his bailout policy. It was so factually false that all he had to do to respond was say, "This guy's full of shit." It, in fact, was such a huge stinker that Chrysler, an automaker normally (and understandably) publicly mute when it comes to electoral politics, felt compelled to come out and respond by saying, "Um, yeah ... That's weapons-grade bullshit."
There was no policy debate. No discussion on why the bailout was good/bad for the taxpayers. No forcing Obama to defend his position.
All the Obama camp had to do was point out the huge lie that the Romney camp had told. Discussion over.
The squawking of a completely fact-free talking point totally removed Obama from any accountability for his policy. All he had to do was point out how fact-free Romney's assertion was.
There were many fact-free assertions made by the Right/Pubs during the past cycle - all them placing the opposition in the enviable spot of never really having to defend their position. All they had to do was call bullshit. They made it easy in many ways.
What you say is valid, but I think what really hurt Romney was speaking the truth, even if some of it was ostensibly behind closed doors. I'm referring to him stating the obvious, that planning to reduce federal income taxes wouldn't be of much interest to those who paid very little of it, etc.... That speech. Pretty much accurate. But I guess some people's sensibilities were hurt, and the media and dems picked it up, yes?
I think Romney's biggest error with regards to his 47% comment is that he missed an opportunity to really shape the debate. He could have explained himself, put it into context, and forced a discussion that we as a country are gonna have to have probably sooner than we'd care to admit. As always with Romney, he blew his presentation.
Though I believe in our safety nets and our entitlement programs, I also agree that there are waaay too many people collecting a government check - many more than can be supported by our population. We are gonna have to make some hard choices about what our government funds and to what extent.
As I've posted numerous times before on MW, it's inevitable that we're all gonna have to pay more and we're all gonna get less. The 40 year-old credit card bill has come due.
As for Romney, I'd say that his loss was only 20-30% his fault. I think it's his Party that really cost him in terms of strategy and logistics. I really do think that the current incarnation of the GOP is in real danger of shrinking into a small, regional party without making some significant fundamental changes.
LOL. Well, they promised they wouldn't let their campaign be driven by smarmy fact checkers. At least they lived up to something.
ReplyDeleteHow about the one where Obama promised 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue raised?
ReplyDeleteNow it's 4 dollars in revenue for every non-existent 1 dollar in spending cuts.
WOW WHAT A WHOPPER!
That is a whopper. Revenue is revenue and simply spending less does not increase revenue.
ReplyDeleteMax,
DeleteWhat part of "How about the one where Obama promised 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue raised?
Now it's 4 dollars in revenue for every non-existent 1 dollar in spending cuts."
"Revenue is revenue" OK. A self-evident equivalency.
"simply spending less does not increase revenue." Possibly, but so what? livestrongest was talking about a major flip by Obama, yes?
Jean
We should have a balanced budget with tax raes that encourage entrepreneurship. Have you seen all the people leaving France because of tax rates. Even in the US people are leaving. Did you see Apple co-founder is applying for Australian citizenship?
ReplyDeleteBut here's the thing Live. Your first sentence sounds great on paper. Nobody would oppose that. But after thirty years of lowering taxes, increasing productivity of American workers and keeping a very tight lid on wages, we are still in an economic dump. We have a "listed" tax rate and then a REAL tax rate for everyone that is frequently lower. I'm not trying to be a mocking jerk here, I just don't see how our current tax rates can be called adversarial toward entrepreneurs. Comparisons to other countries are a little specious. Every country has it's own set of problems and should be viewed as such.
DeleteMy other problem with the who tax war right now is that Republicans have chosen to make their stand NOW after decades of running up debt and decades of helping to create an environment where workers have taken drastic steps backward. Make no mistake, Clinton signed a lot of deregulation and trade deals himself, so he is certainly no saint. Still, after erasing and ending what was a budget surplus, after refusing to raise the taxes after going to war, NOW apparently is the time the base needs to be broadened in order to get those slackers who don't pay taxes to "get some skin in the game". As if, somehow, they were such big recipients of the spending spree that has gone on since 2000.
At the end of the day Max our government should take in the revenue first, before it spends the revenue. Not the other way around.
DeleteBernanke is now shoveling out 85B a month(1.02T a year) to support this spending dinosaur.
We don't have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!
1773-2009
This may have been the most fact-free/policy-free presidential campaign I've ever seen - Especially from the Romney side, and I think it was a big factor in handing Obama, the most beatable incumbent since Carter, a relatively easy victory simply by letting him off the hook - by never forcing him to defend his policies.
ReplyDeleteSee, the "Obama bailed out Chrysler, and now they've outsourced the building of Jeeps to China" is a perfect example. It was such a whopper, that Obama never had to defend his bailout policy. It was so factually false that all he had to do to respond was say, "This guy's full of shit." It, in fact, was such a huge stinker that Chrysler, an automaker normally (and understandably) publicly mute when it comes to electoral politics, felt compelled to come out and respond by saying, "Um, yeah ... That's weapons-grade bullshit."
There was no policy debate. No discussion on why the bailout was good/bad for the taxpayers. No forcing Obama to defend his position.
All the Obama camp had to do was point out the huge lie that the Romney camp had told. Discussion over.
The squawking of a completely fact-free talking point totally removed Obama from any accountability for his policy. All he had to do was point out how fact-free Romney's assertion was.
There were many fact-free assertions made by the Right/Pubs during the past cycle - all them placing the opposition in the enviable spot of never really having to defend their position. All they had to do was call bullshit. They made it easy in many ways.
Just my observation ...
pfunky,
DeleteWhat you say is valid, but I think what really hurt Romney was speaking the truth, even if some of it was ostensibly behind closed doors. I'm referring to him stating the obvious, that planning to reduce federal income taxes wouldn't be of much interest to those who paid very little of it, etc.... That speech. Pretty much accurate. But I guess some people's sensibilities were hurt, and the media and dems picked it up, yes?
Jean
I think Romney's biggest error with regards to his 47% comment is that he missed an opportunity to really shape the debate. He could have explained himself, put it into context, and forced a discussion that we as a country are gonna have to have probably sooner than we'd care to admit. As always with Romney, he blew his presentation.
DeleteThough I believe in our safety nets and our entitlement programs, I also agree that there are waaay too many people collecting a government check - many more than can be supported by our population. We are gonna have to make some hard choices about what our government funds and to what extent.
As I've posted numerous times before on MW, it's inevitable that we're all gonna have to pay more and we're all gonna get less. The 40 year-old credit card bill has come due.
As for Romney, I'd say that his loss was only 20-30% his fault. I think it's his Party that really cost him in terms of strategy and logistics. I really do think that the current incarnation of the GOP is in real danger of shrinking into a small, regional party without making some significant fundamental changes.
2016 ought to be interesting ...
Lie of the Year: the Romney campaign's ad on Jeeps made in China
ReplyDeleteLie of the year: I will not raise taxes on the middle class.
I think the second lie has more impact.