he wants to increase military spending. on the other deficit spending he will just say my tax cuts will increase revenue. republicans always throw out that debunked falsehood.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
At Last Nightâs Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Free Thinker:
he wants to increase military spending. on the other deficit spending he will just say my tax cuts will increase revenue. republicans always throw out that debunked falsehood.
Did you not read what you quoted? I don't care what he wants to increase/decrease the NET result has to be less spending. This is assuming that the reduced deductions CAN'T cover his tax cut.
Also your 'debunked falsehood' is as ignorant as it gets. Lower taxes allow business more of their own money to spend, it is really that simple. The owner might stuff it in his pocket, or he might reinvest it in his company with new employees, equipment etc if he believes expansion is possible. higher rates cut directly into his margin, not only making reinvestment less likely but maybe even making his business unprofitable, in which case he will have to cut his own expenses even more to make it work. The point is lower taxes are good for business and higher taxes are not, the economy will do better with lower taxes. I couldn't care less if govt revenues decrease, they will have to deal with it like a business owner and CUT EXPENSES.
the bottom line is that it was complete bullshit for the left to be saying Romney plan would cause 5 trillion in deficits.
Obama believed the leftist hacks and got caught with no other way to defend his own miserable failures.
Why do leftists only seem to claim you can't pencil into your projections... growth. (when you cut taxes) but they project it for their own budgets.
When historically we have seen growth in revenues after every tax cut... even the Bush cuts.
Obama believed the leftist hacks and got caught with no other way to defend his own miserable failures.
Why do leftists only seem to claim you can't pencil into your projections... growth. (when you cut taxes) but they project it for their own budgets.
When historically we have seen growth in revenues after every tax cut... even the Bush cuts.
Quote from Free Thinker:
even right leaning experts who have looked at it say it does not add up.
that is now a different argument... you just said every and now you are fudging.
you, the leftists and obama are so full of shit. Its why your guy got smoked.
you lie and think its the truth... to yourselves.
here is a report, which does not even factor in the growth caused by Romney's plan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/05/the_5_trillion_tax_cut_myth_115672.html
The trouble is that there's a major snag, argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class -- something he has also vowed not to do.
To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.
The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new?
Politicians exaggerate and simplify. They make more promises than can be kept. They take inconsistent positions. Romney is guilty of this, but so is Obama. Obama says he favors tax reform but would also raise the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. That's the opposite of what most economists consider reform: cutting rates and broadening the tax base. Similarly, Obama has said he would maintain a strong military while rapidly reducing defense spending.
Quote from jem:
that is now a different argument...
you, the leftists and obama are so full of shit. Its why your guy got smoked.
you lie and think its the truth... to yourselves.
here is a report, which does not even factor in the growth caused by Romney's plan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/05/the_5_trillion_tax_cut_myth_115672.html
The trouble is that there's a major snag, argued the TPC in an August report. In practice, the tax breaks affecting the rich (generally, those with incomes exceeding $200,000) aren't sufficient to offset all their tax savings from lower rates. Achieving revenue neutrality would compel Romney to raise taxes on the middle class -- something he has also vowed not to do.
To justify its $5 trillion figure -- the estimated tax loss over a decade -- the Obama campaign had to cherry-pick Romney's proposal and the TPC analysis. It had to ignore any revenue raised by reducing tax breaks and assume that, faced with a conflict between the rich and the middle class, Romney would automatically side with the rich -- as opposed to shielding the middle class from any tax increase. On Wednesday, Romney promised to protect the middle class.
The TPC report was widely interpreted as saying Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class. It didn't, says the TPC's Howard Gleckman. It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new?
Politicians exaggerate and simplify. They make more promises than can be kept. They take inconsistent positions. Romney is guilty of this, but so is Obama. Obama says he favors tax reform but would also raise the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. That's the opposite of what most economists consider reform: cutting rates and broadening the tax base. Similarly, Obama has said he would maintain a strong military while rapidly reducing defense spending.
holy cow. are you guys all drunk on romney juice from the after debate party? does this sound anything like it doesnt add up:
"It simply pointed out that he couldn't keep all "his ambitious campaign promises." He'd have to make choices and modifications. So what else is new?"
you are assuming that the changes he would have to make would be favorable to the deficit. when has a republican ever cut spending?
I was wondering when I was going to get to see the first complete list of Romney's lies during the debate. I caught a couple myself without having to look up the figures. Anyway, consider this, he tugged the heartstrings with... wait for it... hope and change appeals. Sadly, he does not have data to support, his ideas are unworkable. Obama may not be as effective as one would like, but his ideas do have evidence to support.