Talk about playoffs in college football:
We're talking about playoffs?! -TJ
He's not moving seniors into anything. He's offering future seniors a choice. It's only if private plans can provide the same benefits at lower cost that seniors would choose those plans. What is the government to be afraid of if they really are more efficient?So what is Romney for? Is he acknowledging that private insurance have higher administrative costs but still wants to move seniors there?
It's for transition to a competitive system which market-oriented people think will drive down costs over time better than the politician-run traditional Medicare. This uses the market to reduce spending as opposed to politicians who are incented to maintain their own power and thus not cut anything specific at risk of losing interest groups. Note that Romney's plan doesn't preclude the government from doing anything it wants to cut costs, so there are additional savings through traditional Medicare possible.Medicare was extended 8 years under Obama's plan. Is Romney planning on cutting anything or just means testing Medicare? AKA redistribution
Because it's not a tax break for oil companies. It's a tax break for business investment, a small portion of which goes to oil companies. It might be worth cutting as a tradeoff though, which is exactly what Romney said last night.(tax on oil companies) And yet Republicans in Congress refuse to eliminate it. Why is that?
Frankly, Democrats don't understand conservatism. Conservatives know markets need the rule of law in order to work. That means some regulation is necessary in markets. The argument isn't over all or nothing, it's a matter of degree.Romney has stated he wanted to repeal all of Dodd-Frank. Now he is singing the praises of some of it. This is a new line of thinking on his part and the part of Republicans?
Today is honestly the first time I heard about the Democrat bill and I've never heard a Republican response, so I don't know both sides to be honest. There's always a tough dynamic between totally free trade and something like 1928-level tariffs on trade. It's a delicate balance between protecting American and punishing America because your protectionism went too far and caused other countries to remove themselves from purchasing your goods.There is a loophole which allows companies to get tax credits on taxes paid to overseas countries whether or not they US company brings that money back and pays taxes on it. Hope that makes sense. Not sure if it truly encourages outsourcing
The moratorium in the gulf?Production on federal land increased last year. You know where it decreased? Offshore. Any guess as to why?
My point was that Obama cannot point to a major piece of legislation where he achieved compromise other than extensions of old tax policy.Yes, the House GOP was very willing to compromise. So was the Senate GOP for that matter. That's completely disingenuous on your part.
I know this is normal from both sides, but he's a candidate for president. None will offer these kinds of specifics unless they're proposing major legislation. The Republicans have identified like $7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years that could be had under their plans. There are ways to pay for all of this.How does he also increase military spending, apparently now will increase education funding and decrease the deficit let alone balance the budget?
Through block-granting for people with chronic conditions. I have a friend who has insurance now because of a block grant for Chrone's Disease. The drugs are very expensive, so insurance w/o that help is tough to find. R's would block grant these folks in exchange for coverage from plans.Furthermore, how will people with pre-existing conditions get to have health insurance if the amount of people on health care isn't broadened by the mandate? I'd love to know.
In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness. ~RGIII~
---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 04:59 PM ----------
I mean I at least see some logic in trickle down theory/Regeanomics. I'd even be willing to be in certain economic conditions it works.
But where is the logic in we have to tax people less so they have more money to hire more people, but oh we aren't REALLY going to tax them less because we are going to close loopholes so that they are REALLY paying the same amount?
I mean I understand in the context of debates that sometimes its easy to say things that aren't true or aren't logical that are obscured by the details (I think you see that potentially w/ respect to Romney's claim about the Obamacare board and Obama's claim with respect to Romney's plan end up gutting Medicare).
But this seems like a pretty basic sort of thing to me.
Extra money = jobs.
No extra money = no jobs
Which one is Romney proposing based on the debate last night?
---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 05:15 PM ----------
However, I don't expect there to be large economic growth, certainly not on the level of balancing the budget based on that, and I haven't seen anything by anybody to suggest it will. A more effecient system makes more sense, and clearly, the wealthy and the corporations have found ways to keep a good bit of the money as is now so switching to something else that is simplier even if it allows companies and the wealthy to keep a good bit of their money on the surface seems like not to bad of an idea to me.
Do you have any evidence that government actually is most capable of making bubbles happen?
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?
Last edited by PeterMP; October-4th-2012 at 05:54 PM.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive
Birds are flying out of water
Underneath the sky
I run up to the rainbow girl
just to pass her by
I'll never have a change of heart
My swan will never sing
I have no heart the swan is gone
And now I wear the wings
And also, can we decide whether polls are important or not now? Because it'l be real interesting to see if some of the people who talk about how the polls don't matter now are singing the same tune next week when Romney will likely see a slight bump.
First, I admit that I have not read Romney's plan (if it is even published somewhere). However, the basic idea to reducing rates and closing loopholes is that it DOES simplify the tax code. Thehardest part to doing taxes is determining what the actual taxable income is. If we can remove just about all deductions (my idea, not Romney's necessarily) the tax code should shrink. This means removing deductions for businesses and individuals.
Secondly, I do not beleive Romney's plan would result in a 0 sum effect. What I would expect when tax rates are reduced and loopholes closed/some deduction eliminated is that there would be a shift in dollars from richer tax payers who more commonly use loopholes and deductions on large sums of money to average tax payers who less commonly use loopholes on smaller sums of money. Under this scenario those that make more should end up paying more in taxes. That is the secret to the trick of raising revenues by lowering rates and closing loopholes.
I don't see Republicans removing ANY loopholes/deductions for businesses or that affect the 1%ers. They will not raise the capital gains tax, indeed they want to abolish it as they say taxes were paid on the original investment (as if gains somehow magically aren't income and basis can be adjusted upward thus lessening the gain). The only loopholes/deductions that get canned are home mortgage deduction (and the rich will just pay cash then), healthcare deduction and charitable deduction (donations will dry up, especially from the 1%ers if they can't get an advantage from donating).
And if Mitt's plan is revenue neutral, explain how this will stimulate the 1%ers to create more jobs than they already have under Bush tax cuts.
I could win a debate too if I lied about almost every issue and went back on like every word I had been spewing for months. Obama was caught of guard completely by that. Most than a few times Obama looked like he wanted to tell him he was full of crap. He was just too professional for that.
Last edited by RichmondRedskin88; October-4th-2012 at 07:20 PM.
They were tied briefly in the RCP averages Sept 4 - 6. For me I don't see where Romney flips many voters. The critiques I have heard are that Obama was disinterested, not that he made a major mistatement. Romney has some policy shifts / evasions he will be asked about. Romney won on style, it may sway a few but he needs more to win. Then again, if Obama phones it in two more times that might be enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)