Similar to last week's Presidential debate, "Who is winning the debate" is in the top four rising +Google search terms. Take a look at the list!
61 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 57 previous comments
- The answer I saw from Ryan during the debate was that there are $1.1 trillion in tax deductions claimed each year and $1.2 trillion in revenue from income tax. Their 20% tax cut would shave about $220 billion in taxes. Ryan in the debate said he doesn't want to provide specifics on which deductions to eliminate to replace that $220 billion in revenue because R/R would prefer to work with both sides in Congress to reach a compromise. Is that hard to understand? The math can easily work. Cut $220 billion in taxes, remove $220 billion in deductions = revenue neutral.
I happen to favor the Fair Tax (a national sales tax that would entirely replace the income and payroll taxes), but that doesn't stop me from understanding what R/R want to do and why they don't want to provide specifics. Personally, I think removing deductions and complications from the tax code would be a good thing. I'd love to see a flat tax, or even a progressive flat tax. It shouldn't take me more than one page to fill out a tax return, and I sure as heck shouldn't have to pay someone to do it if I have more than 8th grade math skills.Oct 12, 2012
- Yes, but not almost of those 1.1T in deductions/yr are off the table, such as carried interest. I believe I saw that same statement, and they don't have numbers in it. Therefore your math isn't "simple" by any stretch - it's obfuscation at best.
People and think tanks on both the left and center have taken the things that Romney has wanted cut, then the things that he has declared off limits, and looked at them. They have universally come back with a simple message - there aren't enough things left on the table to fill the hole he says he's going to dig.
Every other politician talking taxes has had a baseline of what they want. This "compromise" talking point is a canard. In a compromise, you don't go to the table without a list of things that are your demands. Otherwise it's not compromise, because what is their starting bargaining point?
And as a final point, I now have an advocate for an even less progressive and numbers-based tax scheme defending the R/R plan? At least I now know where you're coming from - a even further out fantasyland of numbers than anything the congressional R's have agreed on in years. I suppose that you want to go back to the gold standard too? ;POct 12, 2012
- In the beginning. of what I call " the Obama experience".....I honestly thought he was going to save us and actually help the U.S. He seemed dedicated and motivated and positive. I was totally for him. But now that some tome has passed, I' be realized that this man I thought was going to change the u.s. for the good, is just like the others. All show no go. Less talk more action people! I mean come on! So I have given on my hope for Obama.
But on the other hand Romneys a rich greedy all about keeping the public in the dark, asshole just like most of our past presidents. They want "their people" to think that they got it under control......when they totally don't.ugh I could go on and on. I say screw em both and bring in someone new.........Obama shouldn't even be legible to be in office.
In the end I'm goin for Romney even though he's like every politician. He's better than Obama.
obama wants the immigrants here, he's making laws so its easier for them to drive. I mean come on. We have enough U.S citizens homeless, poor and starving here.why would he want to add more people's,who can't speak English, they basically are taking. Free money from the government , and there taking a lot of good jobs. I just don't get it. They should just fire everyone in the whitehouse and bring in fresh people to get a different perspective
About all of our problems.
Isn't it common knowledge to know that in order to make things better for your country you have to actually
pay attention and help YOUR country. Duh? I mean if your country is far from pefect wouldnt you try your very hardest, ( especially if country is far from perfectOct 12, 2012
- Britt, I understand where you're coming from, but there are very few people here illegally getting government assistance (aside from in an emergency room, as no one deserves to die no matter how they got here). Most, in fact, either get paid under the table (which the boss would pay income taxes on) or get paid as a worker, meaning that payroll taxes like SS and Workman's Comp get taken out - programs that they will never have access to as non-citizens.
I don't really follow governmental policies on immigration, so I can't give you a good view of either candidate's answer, but from every news report or white paper I've ever read, it seems the real people you should be mad at are running companies like large agribusinesses, or meat processing, or other industries that create the demand for these workers in the first place. They are hiring all these people, usually under the table for nothing wages and poor conditions, instead of paying the cost to hire on-the-level workers and pay for their benefits (and be legally compliant as a company in the US).
It seems common sense to me that if there were no jobs that were available to illegal immigrants, they wouldn't come here to just be homeless and jobless.Oct 12, 2012
- Carried interest is what? $17/billion a year? That hardly seems like almost all of $1.1 trillion. I haven't studied R/R plan in detail, so all I can do is respond to your critiques.
Obama hasn't said what he wants with regards to taxes...other than raising them on the rich. Raising them how high? How much additional revenue is he seeking? I don't recall that he's ever said, other than he wants the rich to pay more. As for this method of comprise, it's a lot more open than what Obama did during the Affordable Care Act, where he stated any plan that didn't meat his specific goals would not be considered as an alternative. The truth is that R/R at least seem to be setting a policy goal and are willing to work with Congress on the nuts and bolts of it.
As for the fair tax, I don't see how that's less progressive as the prebate makes sure that the poorest have the same effective tax rate that they currently have, that being 0%. Of course, I don't actually expect you to engage in an debate on the issue. You seem far more interested in making personal attacks. As for the Gold standard, last I checked that ship sailed in 1971. It's kinda like the Euro from the EU. It's a one way street. Nor do I want to end the fed (though an audit would be nice). Just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to attack them...but I guess since you are please with Biden's laugh track from last night you disagree with me on that point.Oct 12, 2012
- Jeffrey, I'm about to head to work, but I'll leave you with a couple of points.
Obama has said ideally his levels for taxes on the rich would mirror Clinton's (and said this during the debate, IIRC). This has been repeated, and elaborated, and droned on, etc, till the people like me that pay attention on the left are sick of it, quite honestly (;
R/R's tax plan is not as open as ACA was at all, as Obama said that his framework would be a federal version of Romneycare (ie a starting point). He stated some specifics that were off the negotiating table (much like Romney and carried interest, etc). The point where it was declared to be as-is, and R's raised a shitstorm, was after the senate version was finalized, and the House version had to be identical. It's all in the public record, if you'd care to look it up.
I won't debate tax structures here, because that's far too long for a format such as this. I've seen the numbers of the various fair and flat tax programs, and it comes down to effectively a giveaway to the rich and a gutting of any long-lasting social programs that most US citizens hold dear - in other words, just like 99% of other Libertarian economic policy I've seen in the last 20 years. But you're welcome to that idea, as at least it's honest. ;P
Thanks for the nice debate, cheers!Oct 12, 2012