Former Economic Adviser to Romney Says Raise Taxes On The Rich

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 … lp00000009
   
   Um...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am sick to death of hearing about Republicans. They lost the election. Hello!  It's time for the owners of government to come up with their own ideas and let the rest of the country get an idea of whether or not they like their plans.  Who is the president going to blame for the next for years? Nobody he is systematically eliminating the top generals just like Morssi in Egypt. He administration bought thousands of hollow point bullets for the Social Security Administration. They don't have a police force, do they.  The only reason for hollow point bullets is to kill, maim and destroy.
      The U.S. senate hasn't had a budget in 4 years.  Why not?  Did you notice the Republicans lost the election? It isn't their problem anymore.  The election is over!

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Howdy TT. Hope you have been well since last we spoke.
         
         It is a bit distressing to read that some individuals are already trying to criticize the current administration for future events that haven’t happened. It reads like, “Hell, the prez hasn’t done any thing really bad since Election Day so let’s start blaming him for things he hasn’t done yet!” That kind of thinking is not even grounded in reality.
         
         It would seem more productive to focus on real events, do diligent research, and then support our complaints with verifiable facts. While interpretations can sometimes vary, the truth usually stands on its own merits. Take, for example, the hollow point bullet procurement by the SSA that you mentioned.
         
         You asked, “They don't have a police force, do they?” Well, TT, if you take the time to search, you will learn that the agency does indeed have a 295 man security force to protect the public, the facilities, and the employees. Furthermore, 174,000 rounds are a robust yet not totally extraordinary annual purchase considering it is less than 600 rounds per officer. {1} The inventory seems reasonable for training and practice. One day on the firing range can easily consume 100 rounds.
         
         There is much about government worthy of our criticism and concern. I see no point in wasting each other’s time with imaginary issues.
         
         Stay well, Timetraveller. The forum can use another rational and reasonable voice.
         
         
         {1} http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48898365/ns … d-bullets/

         replyreport
         1. 59

            tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you for your gracious response.  Not one of my finest rants and totally off subject for which I am sorry. 
            What I would like to know is who is this 1%. 
            When trying to ratify the 16 amendment.  The 1% was the argument that was used. Only the 1% would pay income taxes.  My kids are angry that so much of their pay check gets taken before they ever get a cent.  Part time waiters and college students don't look like 1% to me.
               
            If the 1% spend more, they hire people and create more jobs?   If they buy airplanes, people who have gone to college, engineer the planes, people fabricate the parts, people have jobs building the aircraft.
            There needs to be people to put the electrical systems together. Computer scientists to test computer systems are needed.   There are security officers who have jobs securing the factories.  There are salesman who have jobs. This link really explains what I am talking about better  http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
             
            To make my point that this class warfare won't stop at 1%.  It was the president himself who changed 1% to the 2% in his speech this morning.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Economists point out that resources are scarce not infinite and should not be wasted on luxuries (e.g., $100 million, 90,000 square feet houses, huge yachts, multiple McMansions, etc, while children are going without medical care and suffering from malnutrition). What you call "class warfare" results from the huge redistribution of wealth and income during the past 30 years or so from the middle class and poor to the ultra-rich in this country. There is plenty of room for increases in top marginal income tax rates and closing egregious loopholes, e.g., capital gains treatment for carried interest income of hedge fund and private equity operators.

               replyreport
            2. 73

               Barbara Kayposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Since Bush's tax cuts, it is said the rich pay the lowest tax rates since Eisenhower. They have tax shelters that should be done away with and many hide their money in the Cayman Islands.

               replyreport
2. 84

   kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

   Yay! I love hearing about Romney!
   
   Because one man's opinion being so drastically different from Romney really says a lot about Romney (especially in advisory position): It mean's Romney is willing to cooperate with those of different opinions. Hooh-hah! I love Romney! Yay! Hope he wins the election which was last week.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   You both hit on the same point, so I'll reply in tandem, just for efficiency purposes.  Tireless talks about other issues, but I want to redirect the discussion back to taxes.  Romney made a couple of direct claims in the first presidential debate.
   
   "You raise taxes and you kill jobs. That's why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don't want to kill jobs in this environment. "
   
   "I’m not going to raise taxes on anyone because when the economy’s growing slow like this, when we’re in recession, you shouldn’t raise taxes on anyone,”
   
   Romney's phrasing is obviously poor.  Including the recession in the timetables appears to be okaying tax increases when the economy is roaring, but not in a recession.  This isn't the view of most conservatives, and I doubt it's the view of Romney, so I'm not going to even address that issue at all.
   
   Now, the first statement is more specific, and the second one seems to just reiterate the point, which means Romney was very much trying to convey to the audience that high taxes were harmful to economic growth. 
   
   His argument is roughly this:
   
   1.  If taxes are raised, then economic growth is slower than it would be without the taxes.  (He never claimed it would come to a complete standstill, at least in the first presidential debate).
   
   2.  Obama's plan will raise taxes on the wealthy.
   
   3.  Therefore, Obama's plan will slow economic growth.
   
   This is obviously a valid argument.  However, are the premises (reasons) offered by Romney true?
   
   The second premise is undeniably true.  Assuming Obama follows through with his promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, I see no no sufficient reason to really doubt this one.
   
   The first premise though, is where the controversy is, and why Glenn Hubbard calling for higher taxes on the rich is so significant.  Romney's entire economic plan was based on keeping taxes low.  That is one of the ways he used to differentiate himself from Obama.  He wanted to lower rates, eliminate deductions; however,  this would not result in a revenue increase (except for future economic growth); it would simply be revenue neutral, along with simplifying the tax code.
   
   Why would a politician pick an adviser, the same man who crafted the Bush tax cuts by the way, who would fundamentally disagree with the base of Romney's ENTIRE argument, when Romney claimed during the presidential debates that the position Hubbard is advocating would KILL jobs?  That seems ridiculous and contradictory.  Hubbard was Romney's CHIEF economic adviser, not simply one among many.  When a chief economic adviser claims your biggest argument against the other guy is unsound, and ends up agreeing with the other guy (at least partially), the appearances make the other guy look much more reasonable than yourself, and make your presidential campaign look like it was a joke.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I can definitely see where he's coming from, though. The wealthy are this country's biggest spenders (they buy what they want, when they want it, because they can afford to do so). They buy stuff. They help the economy by helping every business, warehouse, manufacturer, designer, and what have you, that went into creating that "thing" they purchased. They buy a lot of crap.
      
      If you raise taxes on the rich, they may spend just a *little* less, to make their take-home pay at par with what it was prior to tax raises. And that *little* bit is actually a *big* bit compared to the average Joe. If these big spenders buy less, in theory, it would slow the economy.
      
      Just my $0.02.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Money is still money no matter where it is and it still has the same stimulating effect, who do you think spends money faster the wealthy or the government? Because the faster that money is spent the more the economy will grow, most wealthy people became wealthy by being smart with money as well as other factors thus most of them save their money, many in overseas banks, when the money is sitting in a bank it does not stimulate the economy, when it is being spent it does and the guy who needs the money to eat is certainly going to spend it.
         
         So you see the same amount of money exists anyway, the only difference is how it is spent, the wealthy generally spend more of it on luxury goods while the poor generally spend more in common goods like groceries and common goods due to their lesser value and greater number generally employ more people.
         
         So even if every single rich person in America spends less due to those taxes it will still be a net positive change for the economy and I think we both know that not everyone will do so.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         This sounds plausible at first, but there are many countries who have high taxes and strong economies (Sweden and Denmark).   
         
         It basically depends on where the money is being spent.  The rich will still invest, but they also hoard.  Poor people and many middle class folk will spend almost every penny of their paychecks.  In terms of capitalism, this means there will be an increase in demand, which will lead to an increase in hiring.  So, food stamps and Medicaid for the poor leads to increased demand for food and health care, and investing in programs like Pell grants lead to a more educated workforce, which is a positive in the long term.
         
         Republicans are right in one sense though, that the government would be picking "winners" and "losers."  Funding specific programs for the poor will lead to certain sectors of the economy getting more money, but since this is helping people survive, I have no issue with it at all.
         
         P.S. your $0.02 cents thing was kinda funny.

         replyreport
4. 66

   Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

   Warren Buffett yesterday supported Obama's call for higher taxes on 2 percenters, pointing out that in his experience people paying 50 % or higher marginal tax rates still "came to work every day."

   replyreport
5. 60

   Repairguy47posted 11 years ago

   Since EVERY plan obama has come up with hasn't worked then it only makes sense that we allow him to keep on doing the same thing, yep makes perfect sense.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi again, RP.  I hope both you and your business are doing well these days.
      
      Unfortunately, your comment above suggests that you have missed some of the plans and promises the President has successfully completed so far in his tenure. On the positive side, your loss did encourage me to look once again at the long roster of his achievements and I thank you for providing the incentive.
      
      Here are just a few of the initiatives the President accomplished during his first four years: 
      
      Provide access to affordable healthcare insurance for all Americans.
      Require health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care.
      Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq.
      Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq.
      Expand loan programs for small businesses.
      Establish a credit card bill of rights.
      Implement "Women Owned Business" contracting program.
      Recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession.
      Improve water quality.
      Work toward deploying a global climate change research and monitoring system.
      Strengthen the levees in New Orleans.
      
      Of course, RG, you will find hundreds of others at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ise-kept/. You should really take a look at them. They might keep you from reaching another incorrect conclusion like the one above.
      
      It is always nice to run into you from time to time, RP. You always encourage me to keep up with what is really happening in this country. Many thanks.
      

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Greetings Quill,
         My apologies for butting in, but as your reasonable responses are generally supported by reasonably unbiased links, I naturally clicked your Politifacts link for more information.
         
         I was quite surprised by the substance of this source, and your use of it.
         
         Understanding that, although I believe I am correct, what follows is merely my opinion.  And I do not have the interest to do the necessary research to enter an "I'm right - you're wrong" conversation.
         
         But, I would be hesitant to use that Politifacts article as supportive material for several reasons.
         
         1) I think that any but the most avid progressive-agenda advocate would see it as extremely biased.
         ie. approx. 200 "promises kept," but no "promises not kept," or even an indication that there were any. - That would appear to lack balance
         
         2)Many of the listed promises were extremely vague, ie. "Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity"
         - the Poltifacts rationale for confirming this as a "promise kept" explicitly states that "he has not asked them, yet,
         - but he did designate Stimulus Money for energy programs - $3.2 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, and an unspecified amount for a "smart meters" installation initiative
         So how does that rate a "promise kept" designation? It simply uses more government spending on a project. It did not ask anything.
         
         or another confirmed promise kept - "Encourage water-conservation efforts in the West." In this case he "encouraged conservation" by spending $175 million "stimulus" dollars in the form of grants. Of which $135 million was noted as reclamation projects. Conservation?
         
         As you noted, there are many more examples, hundreds, as you say. And there were some good concrete examples, like; "ending Don't ask Don't Tell."
         
         There were other "specific" promises listed as well, but, in a rough count, approx. 160+/- of the 200+/- listed "promises kept" involved more and new federal spending. Using mechanisms such as; "initiatives", new grant programs, new funding programs, and expansions of current budget fundings.
         
         It appears that Politifacts deems a promise kept if more money is spent.
         
         Did Pres. Obama make any savings, spending cuts or deficit reduction promises?
         
         3) Then there were several that involved areas that, (I think), most reasonable people would conclude the Federal government has no business getting involved in. ie. "Push for a college football playoff system"
         Yes, I know Politifacts stated this was one of two "light-hearted promises kept" listed (in a database of 508), but I think that just its inclusion is indicative of a bias. Sort of Like CNN's Chris Matthews being so enthused with Obama that he made his "leg tingle" - certainly not an unbiased response. (perhaps Politifacts used some of his research?)
            
         Anyway, this is already too long, but I expected a less risky source from you. There are too many trapdoors in that link. Your use of it taints your response.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm afraid I must question your sincerity GA.
            
            You claimed, "1) I think that any but the most avid progressive-agenda advocate would see it as extremely biased.
            ie. approx. 200 "promises kept," but no "promises not kept," or even an indication that there were any. - That would appear to lack balance"
            
            However, a very quick, easy google search brought this up- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … se-broken/  5 pages worth of broken promises.  I can only conclude you did not even try to look for a page like this on politifact's website, or you need to learn how to navigate web pages.  I highly doubt you are unaware of how to navigate a website, so the only rational conclusion is you simply did not try.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               That's an interesting perspective Sooner28 - that you question my sincerity...
               
               I did not challenge Quill's response as being wrong. Or, the poster he was responding to as being right.
               
               I did state it was "my opinion,"  re. the "balance" of the link
               
               I did say I did no further research - (so you are correct, I did not look for a "promises broken" source), again, my response was regarding the link - not the post.
               
               When writing that response, my impression of my own bias was that the statements referring to "more and new" federal spending were indicative that I disagreed with the president's policies- but I carried that disagreement no further.
               
               So regardless of the "correctness" of the position of either poster in the exchange, or my "correctness" regarding the validity of the referenced link, I am certain of the "incorrectness" of your conclusion that my response was insincere.
               
               I never waste time with "insincere" responses. I may, (and perhaps frequently do), "tweak your nose" with a satirical or facetious response, ie my coverage of Pres. Obama's appointment of Barney Frank to the newly created position of "Tea Party Czar," but I am never insincere or duplicitous.
               
               So I stand by my original point - the supporting link used gave me a very distinct impression of bias. And in many examples, (in my opinion), "stretched" to a justify inclusion as a promise kept.
               
               But of course, as with most of these exchanges - that's just my opinion.
               
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  It was highly disingenuous to attack politifact as biased even by "the most avid progressive agenda."
                  
                  If you were truly interested in determining politifact's credibility, you would have looked for a list of broken promises that I found by simply googling the words "politifact Obama broken promises."  You were more interested in delegitimizing politifact as a source than engaging with what was actually said,  and only you know the reasons for that.
                  
                  I do disagree with politifact sometimes; however, they explain EVERY ruling they give.  They don't simply say well this is true and this is false, and take our infallible word for it. 
                  
                  That is why I called your response insincere, because you made no effort at all to determine if politifact actually had a list of Obama's broken promises.  It would be like me saying EVERYTHING Fox News says is a lie.  Clearly that is absurd.  Every single claim made on Fox is not a lie, and it would be easy for me to be attacked as being a lazy thinker or insincere debater if I made such a claim, and rightfully so!

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Sooner28,
                     It appears we are talking on different levels. Which probably means further discussion would be just as misguided.
                     
                     I was addressing one source article - not the site, but I have reiterated and expounded on that point twice already. I doubt a third time would be any more helpful to either of us.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        So we can go by the page Quill linked you to.
                        
                        On the right hand side of that page, it says in bold, "Barack Obama's file."  Hmm.  I wonder that this contains...
                        
                        At the top of the page it says "promises" with an arrow pointing down.  Clicking on that arrow brings up "Obama" and the "GOP Pledge-O-Meter."  Moving the mouse over "Obama" then calls up a list of promises, "kept, broken, stalled, compromised, or in the works."
                        
                        That's all right on the page.  Two different avenues to find politifacts full file on Obama.

                        replyreport
         2. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi GA. Your comments are certainly not “butting in.”  I appreciate your candor and the time you spent on your remarks. I also respect the fact that in any conversation your opinions are always ”right” because they represent your point of view. As for me, I try to always take the time to base my opinions on facts but I never assume my opinions are facts.
            
            I see no need to defend PolitiFact.com as a source. I would quote facts from Fox News or Better Homes and Gardens if I found them to be true. The motives of the source may be woven into the slant and the conclusions stated or implied in the content but they do not detract from the validity of the verifiable facts contained therein. Along the same vein, it does not matter if one assumes my post was intended to defend the President or was a response to a stated misperception. I was responding to the claim “EVERY [sic] plan obama [sic] has come up with hasn't worked.” Therefore, the relative degree of each accomplishment is less relevant than the fact it was fulfilled. Hence, the facts and not the motives of PolitiFact are what must be weighed. 
             
            In your point 1) you address the site’s agenda and criticize the lack of balance. You offer, “i.e. approx. 200 ‘promises kept,’ but no ‘promises not kept,’ or even an indication that there were any. That would appear to lack balance.” This is a false assumption, however, as there is a section devoted to “promises broken” that you missed. {1}
            
            Much of your point 2) relates to your judgement about the quality of his initiatives versus PolitiFact’s criteria for listing them as done. Here, you question whether stimulus or block grants qualify as an effort to encourage electric and water conservation. Clearly, in these few cases, the President said he would try and, apparently, he did. In the end, you express your displeasure that PolitiFact's judgement differs from your own and complain the President did not keep a few promises that he never made but you think he should have. 
            
            Finally, in point 3) you point out some kept promises were in areas that you and “most reasonable people” think the President should not have ventured in the first place. Okay. But they remain campaign promises made and kept whether you and “most reasonable people” agree with them or not.
            
            In the end, GA, my post presented facts that I hoped would refute what I believed to be a misstatement in this thread. Since you did not find any case where PolitiFact’s claims were untrue, then I guess they and I achieved our goals.
            
            I’m sorry for the length, GA, but I felt your effort deserved a thorough reply. I appreciate your comments and welcome your perspective. Thank you.
            
            {1} http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … se-broken/

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Quill,
               
               Disregarding the references pertaining to sincerity, I think my response to Sooner28, (above), will also serve as a response here.
               
               I felt the link was extremely "challengable(sp)," as a credible source, and thus was not up to your usual source standards.
               
               That was my point.
               
               And though it may simply be an argument of semantics; I do not believe opinions are always right - merely because they reflect a point of view.
               
               but I suppose I should address some of your points.
               
               "... I was responding to the claim “EVERY [sic] plan obama [sic] has come up with hasn't worked.” Therefore, the relative degree of each accomplishment is less relevant than the fact it was fulfilled. Hence, the facts and not the motives of PolitiFact are what must be weighed. 
               
               I agree
               
               "... You offer, “i.e. approx. 200 ‘promises kept,’ but no ‘promises not kept,’ or even an indication that there were any. That would appear to lack balance.” This is a false assumption, however, as there is a section devoted to “promises broken” that you missed. {1}
               
               
               hmmm... possibly. True I did not look for "promises broken," but that does not change my perception that a lack of any reference to such, combined with the source content, still left an "unbalanced" perception.
               
               "...In the end, you express your displeasure that PolitiFact's judgement differs from your own and complain the President did not keep a few promises that he never made but you think he should have. 
               
               Nope, this one is wrong from start to finish. I expressed no displeasure - merely disagreement. Also I made no address to promises I thought he should have made, or did not make.
               
               "...you point out some kept promises were in areas that you and “most reasonable people” think the President should not have ventured in the first place. Okay. But they remain campaign promises made and kept whether you and “most reasonable people” agree with them or not.
               
               This almost feels as if you are concurring with my point concerning the strength of the source
               
               "...Since you did not find any case where PolitiFact’s claims were untrue, then I guess they and I achieved our goals.
               
               Wrong - I did find instances where I thought the source was wrong, ie. The "Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity" promise, but the later part of your statement is correct. You did accomplish your goal. But I still feel it was with a less-than-Quill standard source - which was the point of my original response.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, GA. I promise to do better in the future.
                  

                  replyreport
6. 65

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   Whereas, the only economists in the world that predicted the recession say: don't raise taxes - cut spending and end the fed instead.

   replyreport
7. 55

   ftclickposted 11 years ago

   It'll help for the next election. Now that is "Forward"

   replyreport
8. 77

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   More to the point: How many promises has Romney kept?
   Zero.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good Question, MM.  One worthy of some research.
      
      PolitiFact.com does not list promises but they do evaluate a number of statements made by Mitt Romney at http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/.  Fifty-nine percent are designated True, Mostly True, or Half True.
      
      On the other hand, PolitiFact does have a section devoted to GOP promises kept. Among them is ...
      
      “Keep ‘combatants’ in Guantanamo Bay
      In the tug of war over the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Republicans have prevailed. President Barack Obama earned a Promise Broken for his pledge to close the prison, while congressional Republicans have fulfilled their promise to keep the facility open and running.” {1}
      
      {1} http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … anamo-bay/

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Which promises were those, there were so many flip flops on all of his policies? Did he actually have any policies?

      replyreport