Romney Debate Tactic: There's a name for that!

1. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   The Gish Gallup.
   Who knew?
   
   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah I saw this.  It fits perfectly.

      replyreport
2. 67

   chefsrefposted 11 years ago

   And all this time I thought it was called lying.
   
   Romney's approach is to befuddle the uninformed with false facts.
   If Obama doesn't call him out on the lies Romney wins and we lose.
   As was said, Romney's campaign is not going to be run by fact checkers

   replyreport
3. 69

   AJReissigposted 11 years ago

   Have you ever considered that the Obama administration is who is lying?  We keep hear over and over again about how Romney is going to raise taxes on the middle class, and yet when you read his plan, he is cutting taxes on the middle class by 20% and eliminating middle class capital gains tax.  Now, there may be some in the middle class who end up paying more because he plans on reducing deductions.  Just like in the top tier, there will be some who pay less because of the tax cut, but there will be plenty of upper income folks who pay more because of a lack of deductions.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      chefsrefposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      An August analysis by the Tax Policy Center found it was mathematically impossible (PDF) for Romney to simultaneously cut taxes on upper-income households, keep middle-income tax burdens from rising, and prevent an increase in the budget deficit.
      As to lying, they both have their own facts but Romney keeps changing his positions to suit his audience, the Romney of the debate is not the Romney of the past few months and the Romney of the last few months is not the Romney who governed Massachusetts he relies on his etch a sketch a little too much,

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I just proved that it isn't mathematically impossible in another thread.
         
         If you have people paying an effective rate of 24% right now, what would change if you lowered the marginal rate to 24%, but got rid of all deductions/exemptions/credits?

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Romney was in full etch a sketch mode in the debate last night, contradicting many of his previous positions in an effort to back away from his extreme positions in the primaries and the Ayn Randian orientation of his running mate Paul Ryan.
            
            Jaxon, you didn't prove anything about Romney's budget claims. He failed to specify what tax loopholes he would close and what programs he would cut other than the PBS subsidy which amounts to an eyedropper compared to the deficit. And he has said he would eliminate the inheritance tax to the benefit of himself and his own family. Moreover, he has proposed a big increase in the military budget, and he has criticized Obama's efforts to wind down the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan.
            
            TAXES: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about,” said Romney. A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.
            
            Romney also said, “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” This is of course completely untrue, but also directly at odds with what Romney was claiming during the GOP primary. During a February debate with his Republican primary rivals, Romney proclaimed:
            
            “We’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 Percent.”

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph, I proved that Obama's claim, and anyone else's for that matter, that it is impossible for Romney to cut rates and maintain revenue, are wrong. That's what I proved.
               
               Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it?
               
               Also, still waiting for you to quote where he was talking about the inheritance tax, I didn't see it.
               
               Not that you will respond to what I say or ask... that pesky honest discussion biting me in the tukus again, isn't it?

               replyreport
            2. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               ... and also reduce deductions, exemptions, and credits. But that would sure mess up your story, wouldn't it?

               replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Romneys' plan does state what he wants to do but as the surveys and studies show he would fail because the two cannot be done simultaneously. If he were to cut taxes to the upper wage earners as he states there would not be enough gains in tax loophole reform to even make up the difference let alone make gains on the deficit. His assertion that by lowering the "rate" (read taxes which he would not admit to in terminology) would spur job growth and therefore offset the losses from tax cuts is absolutely a "hope" basis for its' successs.  Starting with Reagan the GOP has run this trickle down economics as the salvation of our economy which has resulted in dismal success and in Reagans case resulted in his raisng taxes 11 times. Bushs' economical success was based on the housing and bank speculation scandals that eventually collapsed the economy in the late 2000's.

      replyreport
4. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

     Apparently many viewers felt the same way. 
   
   a comical look at the debate~ http://www.upworthy.com/watching-the-de … ike?c=ufb1

   replyreport
5. 69

   AJReissigposted 11 years ago

   If you look at the Tax Policy Certer study and read it, you will see why it is so screwed up.  First, they cut revenue from the top tier by 20%.  But many, if not most, top tier earners make the most of their income from investment income.  FOR TOP TIER EARNERS INVESTMENT INCOME IS STILL TAXED AT THE OLD RATE.  The tax policy study did not diferentiate between investment and wage income. 
   
   Secondly, they did not take into account changes in behavior due to changes in the tax rates.  Historicly, whenever we have had a lowering of the tax rates, the federal government has had an increase in revenue due to increaded economic activity.  It happened when Regan lowered taxes, when Kennedy lowered taxes, and when Bush lowered taxes.  How much an increase is hard to say, as so many other factors play into GDP growth (weak/strong dollar, trade deals, business regulation...).
   
   My criticism of Romneys plan is that I would like to hear more details of what deductions will be eliminated and to what extent.  Personally, I am a believer in a flat tax system, so while I think Romney's plan is a step in the right direction, it is far from what I would consider ideal.  However, it will be much better for the economy and Americans in general than President Obama's income redistribution tax plan.

   replyreport
6. 62

   American Viewposted 11 years ago

   Amazing the double standard  that gets tossed around. Everyone wants to know specifically what cuts and where Romney will make in the tax codes as well as the budget. Romney has given some of what you've asked for. He and Obama said a lot of the same things at that debate, it nobody will ask Obama where will he be making their cuts, where is his specific plan? The reality to that answer is we already know he has no plan.
   
   Bottom line is this, you can all make all the excuses you want, it was his anniversary, it was the Denver air( thank you Al Gore for the best bull shit story of the debate) but it was truly clear Obama does not have control or understanding of the issues. When challenged by Romney rather than defending himself with the information he put out, he would revert back to talking points, the same talking points that we have heard word for word for the last year.
   
   Obama was right about one thing, it's math. It is unfortunate sitting here and watching debates and how people are responding in these posts that math has been forgotten. A quick lesson. One plus one equals zero, one minus one equals zero, one plus one minus one equals one. You start with a revenue of one. You add one to the revenues by closing a loophole, you minus one by lowering taxes. Therefore, you are revenue neutral. 1+1-1=1 MATH, a wonderful thing.
   
   One last thought, Ralph made the comment on the cutting the funding for PBS is insignificant only cut in the total budget. See it is that kind of thinking that has got us into the predicament we're in today. Only back then the comment was"all it will only add .012% to the budget"  That Process was done time after time after time for new expenditures, while nobody was paying attention to the actual revenues coming in. All that is how we need now to reduce our deficit spending, a piece at a time. A .012% cut here, a 0.12% cut their, before you know it over time you have reached the balance budget. Also keep in your mind that massive all the ones budget cuts would be disastrous to the economy, small cuts are what is needed over a period of time. And despite the quotes from the Democrats that's a big bird will become homeless when Romney cuts the funding to PBS, the reality is funding from the government is only 10% of PBS's total revenues.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The point is that Romney's promise to balance the budget by closing loopholes is wishful thinking and hot air. He said he would eliminate the PBS subsidy, and he defended the huge oil depletion allowance, albeit he said it's on the table however that doesn't mean much in view of his support from the Koch brothers and big oil money.  Also, he's promised to eliminate the inheritance tax, but he made no mention of the carried interest subsidy which he's still benefiting from. The truth is there's no way he could balance his proposed tax cut by closing loopholes and cutting programs, except for the defense budget which he wants to increase.
      
      They should have made him submit a urine sample to find out what he was on for the debate.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         chefsrefposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I think they need that urine for the trickle down effect.
         Trickle down economics = peeing on my leg, and expecting gratitude because they are showering me with gold.There still seem to be lots of people who believe in spite of a lack of evidence

         replyreport
      2. 62

         American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Amazing how 2 people can hear the same speech and words yet some just ignore those words because they do not fit their argument. From the Transcript:
         
         "ROMNEY: I think first of all, let me -- let me repeat -- let me repeat what I said. I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That's point one.
         
         So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that's not my plan.
         
         Number two, let's look at history. My plan is not like anything that's been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working.
         
         My priority is putting people back to work in America. They're suffering in this country. And we talk about evidence. Look at the evidence of the last four years. It's absolutely extraordinary. We've got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country. It's just -- it's -- we've got -- when the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps; 47 million on food stamps today; economic growth this year slower than last year, and last year slower than the year before."
         
         By the way, Romney never said that the budget would balance just by doing this.

         replyreport
7. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   Obama did not 'underperform': we saw the real man
   
   Mr Obama is in the midst of an election campaign he is attempting to win without policies. He claims he will cut debt despite having ruled out reductions to the most significant area of spending, welfare entitlements. He wants to avoid war in the Middle East, which is commendable, but not, in itself, a policy. He is against a "war on women", he is against the Boy Scouts of America banning gays. This isn't anywhere close to being a prospectus for governing the world's most important country through a period of crisis – it's a manifesto for election to a student union.
   
   http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/th … -real-man/

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "to the most significant area of spending, welfare entitlements."
      
      Interesting. You think welfare entitlements are "the most significant area of spending."  Romney apparently agrees. He would cut welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare while eliminating the inheritance tax. I'm not sure what you mean by the "most significant area of spending." If you mean welfare is the biggest item in the budget, I doubt that's the case. (I'll look it up.) It may be most significant to you and Romney, but not to others. Moreover, the increased spending on welfare and food stamps is due to the Bush recession. (Actually it went down in 2011 over 2010 due to improvement in the economy.)
      
      Federal Spending 2011
      Defense and International security                 $718 billion
      Social Security                                                 731
      Medicare                                                          769
      Safety Net (food stamps, housing assistance,
      school lunch, earned income tax credit, etc.)      466
      
      Tax Loopholes "on the table"
      Oil depletion allowance                                        2.4
      Carried interest treatment for private equity
      and hedge fund operators                                   15.0
      Offshore Tax Havens                                         100
      Mortgage interest deduction on 2nd homes
      and yachts                                                          10.0
      Capital gains lower tax rate                                256.0
      Failure to limit deductions                                   114.0
      
      http://thinkprogress.org/progress-repor … ?mobile=nc

      replyreport
      1. 62

         American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am not sure where you got the 2011 figures you are using, but I am sure they are not accurate. The 2011 federal spending budget has ended its fiscal year just 7 days ago. It will be several months before the actual audited figures are released.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Here's where I got the 2011 Federal spending figures:
            
            http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

            replyreport
            1. 62

               American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Ralph,
               
               From your article:
               
               Appendix
               "We based our estimates of spending in fiscal year 2011 on the most recent historical data released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (The federal fiscal year 2011 runs from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011.)"
               
               It clearly says estimate.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay. They are the best available and probably pretty close.

                  replyreport
         2. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            @AV
            The 2011 United States federal budget is for the fiscal year 2011, which is October 2010 – September 2011.” {1}
            
            {1}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

            replyreport
            1. 62

               American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Quill,
               
               How are you doing.
               
               Thanks for pointing out my error. Not sure why I thought RD was talking about the current fiscal year when he was clearly talking about 2011 fiscal year.
               
               Take care my friend and catch you later.

               replyreport
8. 93

   e-fiveposted 11 years ago

   I still don't understand Romney's tax philosophy.  Maybe one of the conservatives here can explain.  Let's just take Romney at face value on what he's saying, and not infer any bizarre conditions:  If you're lowering the marginal rate across the board (because that supposedly increases economic activity?!??!), you're returning programs to the states or discontinuing them at the Federal level, and then eliminating most loopholes and deductions to make it all revenue neutral, what have you actually done in the end?  You're likely paying about the same in federal taxes, it's just calculated slightly differently.  And then if discontinued federal programs are then administered or provided by the states, your state taxes will have to go up.  So where does the increased economic activity come in?  Is it somehow psychological, because you THINK you're paying less?  You're actually paying more to the state and the same to the feds--- it's actually an effective tax increase, except the poorest suffer more.  Am I missing something?

   replyreport
9. 58

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   FactCheck.org agrees with your assessment of Mr. Romney's performance but also states that President Obama did the same thing.  Both men spewed falsehoods, so to put the blame solely on Mr. Romney is biased and incorrect.  Blame both candidates.
   
   http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-de … larations/

   replyreport
   1. 69

      AJReissigposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Factcheck.org is a liberal organization that tries to present opinion as fact.  Pointing to something they have stated is like saying "XXX is true because Michael Moore says so".

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, being a conservative republican, I certainly don't agree with much Michael Moore says, if anything. Still, the site details one more falsehood for President Obama than it does Mr. Romney.  If a liberal organization acknowledges that, what can we say about President Obama's performance and honesty?

         replyreport
   2. 92

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I said the same thing. Apparently, the libs are concerned only with Romney's falsehoods and exaggerations.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Habee, what do you expect? We'll leave Obama's exaggerations up to you and focus our attention on Romney's outright lies.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
         2. 62

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Keep telling yourself that Ralph, but saying it does not make it so. Hmmm I seem to have heard that somewhere before

            replyreport
10. 58

    Education Answerposted 11 years ago

    Here's another site that fact checks the debate.  This one is purely for fun.
    
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/32 … r-kirsanow

    replyreport
11. 65

    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    Paul Volcker's Views on the Taxation of U.S. Companies
    
    I was more than a little startled to see my name atop your editorial "Obama vs. Volcker, Et Al." (Oct. 4), so permit me to set out my personal views on corporate taxation.
    
    The present corporate tax rate is indeed way too high, while shot full of exemptions and loopholes that defy economic logic. I'd like to see the effective rate no higher than the average of other industrialized economies (and of the most important emerging nations as well). At the same time, the loopholes and favored treatment of some industries and companies should be swept away, sharply limiting any revenue loss from the lower nominal rate. Because American companies get a credit for foreign corporate taxes paid on their foreign operations, their U.S. liability would then be zero or quite small for the great bulk of their foreign operations, protecting their competitive position.
    
    In essence, U.S. tax due on foreign earnings by U.S. companies abroad would be largely limited to foreign "tax haven" countries—yes, including tiny Ireland that has made a policy of enticing foreign businesses on low corporate-tax grounds. That indeed seems to be close to your own view that territorial exemptions would in those circumstances be "less important." I would, in that circumstance, tax (at the new lower rate) world-wide earnings as President Obama has suggested. The benefit would be to greatly reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the incentive to manipulate "transfer pricing" and the hoarding of overseas earnings in foreign locales. It would practically end the incentive to outsource jobs in very low corporate tax-rate countries, which for the most part are economically small.
    
    In fact, it strikes me this is one area in which the candidates may be close to agreement.
    
    Paul A. Volcker
    
    New York
    
    (Wall Street Journal 10-8-12)

    replyreport
12. 61

    movingoutposted 11 years ago

    President Obama's debate tactic! And I quote! As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake!"

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Haha.  You are assuming the audience can see he made mistakes.

       replyreport
13. 61

    movingoutposted 11 years ago

    Romney debate tactic? Tell extreme right one thing (small audiences) and tell large groups (debates) another. This guy is an habitual liar! I'm starting to think he wants to be president because he feels it's his birth right!

    replyreport