Obama supporters are in a panic. Obama was playing Martyball and Romney just scored unanswered points.
I DVR'ed the debate and watched some last night and I'll finish watching the rest tonight. I think Romney looked good but his tax plan really alarms me as a tax payer. I'm a home owner and I'm worried that under his plan I won't be able to deduct my interest. Sure, his plan will let me take home more but I won't get as large of a return as I normally would.
Am I understanding this correctly? This is probably a deal breaker for me if this is the case.
In terms of a middle class tax cut based on closing loop holes, how does that cause massive economic growth to balance the budget and help greatly reduce unemployment?
He clearly said in the debate that it would be revenue neutral and that he didn't support raising taxes on the wealthy (He criticized Obama's plan of raising taxes on people w/ over $250,000. Are you claiming his plan is really a stealth tax increase on the wealthy?).
If you believe that Romney will close unspecified loopholes then you must also have believed Obama when he promised to go through the federal budget line by line and cut unspecified programs that do not work. Sheep!!!
Finally, honesty in politics.
Mitt Romney said right after the primaries that he was going to shake the etch a sketch and spin a new tale to give the audience he was facing whatever they wanted most.
Think about what he said during the primaries, his donors in private, on the stump speech, and then to a general tv audience... and envision him smiling while twirling the knobs of an etch a sketch.
One thing I wonder is how serious Mitt Romney is about ending loopholes and protection regulation and, making business fair.
Sometimes I get the feeling he's telling the truth, that the businessman in him truly does yearn for fair competition.
Then I think, yeah ****ing right.
A good thing I hope does come out of this debate is an earnest dialogue and attempt at reforming the tax code, specifically these supposedly rampant tax arbitrage abuses.
No matter who is in power, this seems like a good thing for the country. Basically Mitt's identified it as a way to raise revenue that would have bipartisan support because its a way for Republicans to get around their commitment to that damned Norquist pledge.
I think the flat tax doesn't sell, so you get a lesser version of it. Upon further reflection, I also think the idea behind this flattening is that a lot more people get tax breaks than have their effective rates raised because they take advantage of write-offs. So, if my theory is right (and I think I've heard Ryan say this, but I could be wrong), a lot more small businesses will get a cut.Quote:
Serious question given the issues we have (unemployment, defeciet, healthcare costs, etc.) do you really believe much of a Presidential debate should focus on closing SOME tax loopholes (essentially those to the most wealthy that will help off set their decrease in the tax rate, but not even all of them necessarily and not any in particular)?
I mean I could understand if you were talking about major sweeping changes to the tax code (e.g. going to a flat tax), but Romney appears to have centered the most of his argument around a revenue neutral tweaking of the tax code that isn't really going to put more money in people's hands, and isn't even necessarily going to reduce the complexity of the tax code.
Is that really his solution?
Also, his plan makes another major philosophical change that I cannot believe I didn't pick up on since it's a philosophy I generally believe in. Here it goes:
My personal opinion is that corporate taxes should be very similar to individual taxes. The current incentive is for individuals to pay themselves as opposed to putting the money back into the corporation where it would be used for reinvestment in capital (human, physical, intellectual, whatever) and dividends. This is paid for by removing loop holes and raising individual rates.
So, in theory, Romney's tax plan not only helps small businesses who are less likely to get huge deductions, it also helps corporate entities (e.g., the company). This, in my opinion, is a substantial strategic improvement for how to implement a tax system and incent companies to reinvest in themselves. It also reduces incentives to move corporate divisions over seas, and provides a better tax scenario to attract companies back to America.
Romney won the debate, IMO but it wasn't a situation where Obama came out and just looked completely lost or had any really memorable flubs; he just wasn't super on his game. If he doesn't step it up for the next two debates and Romney really dominates them then I could potentially see it making a difference for Mitt, but the notion being peddled by the Right after the debate, that everything is now changed and its a whole new race, is unlikely to be very realistic.Quote:
From Al Gore’s loud sighing to Jimmy Carter saying he consulted his 12-year-old daughter on nuclear proliferation, presidential debates are full of memorable moments. But despite the fanfare that surrounds each election cycle’s televised events, historical data shows the debates are rarely game changers.
“There are a handful of cases in which a debate had a notable effect on the polls,” political scientist John Sides says. “But most debates don’t produce that kind of shift.”
A 2008 Gallup study found that between 1960 and 2004, there were only two years where debates made a difference in actual votes. Instead, the most common outcome of the presidential debates is a slight popularity bump. But that bump doesn’t necessarily translate into votes.
“They sometimes have a short-term effect, a bounce in response to the debates, but at the end of the day there often is not much of an effect,” says Robert Erikson, author of The Timeline of Presidential Elections.
I do think Mitt resents that powerful corporate figures are widely dehumanized and characterized as amoral Galacti, devourers of worlds (corporations are people comment). I think Mitt believes that he and his social circle behave according to the same sets of morals as everyone else. The world he knows is not glamorized/demonized/lionized/what have you like it is for us normals. But he really doesn't know what the world is like for the vast majority of people, how some of the things he thinks are fair and natural are immoral to everyone else.
That's my armchair psychology anyway.
EDIT: Actually, you know what? Nevermind.
Romney's an unprincipled, bullying liar. He is not a good dude. And the people outside of the norms of his world might as well be dead to him.
That was me desperately hoping for some sort of silver lining in him being president.
It's a tax basically but under deduction removal clothing.
Sure more jobs means more payroll tax revenue but how long will that take and how many jobs to offset a tax cut across the board plus increase in defense spending? many years i think so the bottom line deficit will increase until that happens.
Are any conservatives concerned that last night heralded the return of liberal Mitt Romney? I was surprised by how many of his policies last night were non conservative positions, defending government regulation for instance.
I guess if you wanted to blame the government via the Fed, there might be something to talk about in terms of it being pretty far up the list, but if you start listing where the tax code had a role in either one, you'd have to get down the list to about 100.
If you cut the deduction for health insurance for small business owners, that's going to be a pretty large tax increase on many small businesses.
I guess this might be true if you assume the magic right combination of deductions, but because Romeny isn't laying them out, I think it is difficult to make that argument.
Both Obama and Romney talked about DECREASING corporate tax rates, I believe just for those reasons.
Nobody talked about raising corporate tax rates- real or effective. Nobody talked about tying corporate tax rates to individual tax rates.
I think you are trying to make what Romney said into what you want him to do.