1st Debate Romney/Obama

[kcshocker11]

If your tax rate drops causing a $5000 reduction in taxes but your favorite deduction is no longer allowed causing your taxes to increase by $1500, will you tell your wife that you got a $5000 tax cut or a $3500 tax cut this year?

Choose wisely.

First off tax rate legislation is done separate from elimination of deductions. Its possible to have a rate reduction put in place and have all or some deductions not make it through the House and Senate. Second it is impossible to eliminate enough deductions to pay for a across the board tax rate cut that large, there arent enough deductions in the tax code . This is a pie in the sky bs proposal that would never see the light of day. The only means left to pay for this boondoggle would be cut spending on big 3(not gonna happen) or raise some other form of revenue.

This would further be complicated by the elimination of the amt, estate tax and no increase in cap gains(all which Mitt has run on the last year I believe).

I can hear it now, oh KC how do you know, well I spent 30 yrs in the tax business both as a owner of several tax prep businesses and I worked for the largest tax shelter organization the world as client services manager, where I wrote and admin tax shelters to the riches people in the world during the hayday of tax shelters the 1980's.

Mitts ideas are complete nonsense.

[MoValley John]

First off tax rate legislation is done separate from elimination of deductions. Its possible to have a rate reduction put in place and have all or some deductions not make it through the House and Senate. Second it is impossible to eliminate enough deductions to pay for a across the board tax rate cut, there arent enough deductions in the tax code . This is a pie in the sky bs proposal that would never see the light of day. The only means left to pay for this boondoggle would be cut spending on big 3(not gonna happen) or raise some other form of revenue.

This would further be complicated by the elimination of the amt, estate tax and no increase in cap gains(all which Mitt has run on the last year I believe).

I can hear it now, oh KC how do you know, well I spent 30 yrs in the tax business both as a owner of several tax prep businesses and I worked for the largest tax shelter organization the world as client services manager, where I wrote and admin tax shelters to the riches people in the world during the hayday of tax shelters the 1980's.

Mitts ideas are complete nonsense.

Quick couple of questions. How does Romney's math stack up to the pie in the sky bs math Obama spewed four years ago? My answer would be there's a lot less bs in Romney's math but I want to know what you think.

Secondly, name two mistakes Obama has made in his first term?

[MoValley John]

Here's some Obama promises and "math" to mull over.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15574751

[kcshocker11]

The problem is Romney has shown no math. He leaves vague generalizations.

There was graphic on CNN last night which showed the unemployment picture per state when Obama took over and how it is today. Many states where at 10% and over when he took over, all but 2 had improved.(I mention this because you pointed it out above).

It is true that Obama was fudging the math at 5mil jobs created its actually 4.5 mil with a net gain of 125,000 over job losses in he first months of his presidency(though the labor dept had adjusted previous estimates that day up over 300,000 more. Perhaps Obamas people were adjusting this in). It is only fair to say it takes time. We were losing 700,000 jobs per month when he took over, it is true we have turned that around and had added jobs for over 30month under his admin.

Please give examples of other fuzzy math- I'm sure there are some, each campaign uses their fair share of spin.

Mistakes- Obama saw the problems of the economy as not as bad as they truely were. His reaction was not big enough, he caved in to those who champion the debt over the urgency of the failing economy. The debt is a problem, but to rescue an economy that was going over a cliff was a bigger problem. Stimulus should have been bigger much bigger. Once the GDP gets growing again, this with proper spending cuts and revenue increases will go a long way to debt reduction.

Obama believed like many who have not been Pres that his abilities to accomplish things were greater than they were. Take Gitmo, he couldnt fulfill a promise because he needed Congress to accomplish this.

Obama didnt for see the distain of the right for the left and vis versa( not all but many)- he truely believed he could get people to work together on legislation he thought were very important, so much so he thought that he would stand back and let Congress work out the details in a bipartisan way and all he would have to do is tweek it. He didnt grab the reins of leadership early on. I believe he has become far more aggressive in the last year or so to the delight of some and the dislike of others..

Again what I would say to your link above is Obama didnt realize when he came into office the scope of the problem. If you read the conversation it points out that we are heading in the right direction.

Before Obama was elected I used to describe the economy as a freight train full of tnt headed towards a cliff. I truely didnt believe anyone could stop it. Not only did we stop it, we have slowly reversed it and it is heading in the right direction. As to how much credit should go to Obama, I dont know, but I do know if it went over the cliff he would have gotten the blame. You may disagree but I can tell you people I know in the financial fields arent scared sh..tless today like they were then. I willl say there is still much worry but not like then. That includes me

On another note, I dont blame Mitt for his use of tax avoidance on his personal returns, its most likely everything he has done is legal. But that being said, haven not seen his returns I would make an educated guess that he paid very little if any tax, and in light of his 47% comments might be quite embarrassing.


On another personal note I believe Obamacare is a mistake. Not in the way many on here do. I have traveled all over the world and have had the experience of using healthcare in such countries as Australia, England and France. I believe Obama should have pushed for universal heathcare. It works, and if you dont believe me look at where the US ranks in relationship to overall healthcare and in specifics published by the World Healthcare Org.. I talked to many people about systems overseas and found most liked their system and wouldnt change it. I do believe Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Again you may disagree but I base my opinion on my life experiences and a trust that the WHO isnt making these figures up.

[MoValley John]

The problem is Romney has shown no math. He leaves vague generalizations.

There was graphic on CNN last night which showed the unemployment picture per state when Obama took over and how it is today. Many states where at 10% and over when he took over, all but 2 had improved.(I mention this because you pointed it out above).

It is true that Obama was fudging the math at 5mil jobs created its actually 4.5 mil with a net gain of 125,000 over job losses in he first months of his presidency(though the labor dept had adjusted previous estimates that day up over 300,000 more. Perhaps Obamas people were adjusting this in). It is only fair to say it takes time. We were losing 700,000 jobs per month when he took over, it is true we have turned that around and had added jobs for over 30month under his admin.

Please give examples of other fuzzy math- I'm sure there are some, each campaign uses their fair share of spin.

Mistakes- Obama saw the problems of the economy as not as bad as they truely were. His reaction was not big enough, he caved in to those who champion the debt over the urgency of the failing economy. The debt is a problem, but to rescue an economy that was going over a cliff was a bigger problem. Stimulus should have been bigger much bigger. Once the GDP gets growing again, this with proper spending cuts and revenue increases will go a long way to debt reduction.

Obama believed like many who have not been Pres that his abilities to accomplish things were greater than they were. Take Gitmo, he couldnt fulfill a promise because he needed Congress to accomplish this.

Obama didnt for see the distain of the right for the left and vis versa( not all but many)- he truely believed he could get people to work together on legislation he thought were very important, so much so he thought that he would stand back and let Congress work out the details in a bipartisan way and all he would have to do is tweek it. He didnt grab the reins of leadership early on. I believe he has become far more aggressive in the last year or so to the delight of some and the dislike of others..

Again what I would say to your link above is Obama didnt realize when he came into office the scope of the problem. If you read the conversation it points out that we are heading in the right direction.

Before Obama was elected I used to describe the economy as a freight train full of tnt headed towards a cliff. I truely didnt believe anyone could stop it. Not only did we stop it, we have slowly reversed it and it is heading in the right direction. As to how much credit should go to Obama, I dont know, but I do know if it went over the cliff he would have gotten the blame. You may disagree but I can tell you people I know in the financial fields arent scared sh..tless today like they were then. I willl say there is still much worry but not like then. That includes me

On another note, I dont blame Mitt for his use of tax avoidance on his personal returns, its most likely everything he has done is legal. But that being said, haven not seen his returns I would make an educated guess that he paid very little if any tax, and in light of his 47% comments might be quite embarrassing.


On another personal note I believe Obamacare is a mistake. Not in the way many on here do. I have traveled all over the world and have had the experience of using healthcare in such countries as Australia, England and France. I believe Obama should have pushed for universal heathcare. It works, and if you dont believe me look at where the US ranks in relationship to overall healthcare and in specifics published by the World Healthcare Org.. I talked to many people about systems overseas and found most liked their system and wouldnt change it. I do believe Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Again you may disagree but I base my opinion on my life experiences and a trust that the WHO isnt making these figures up.

Did Obama use good math when he hatched Obamacare? Let's take a closer look. We tax businesses for ten years to pay for six years worth of spending. It balances over ten years, and that is the standard they tried to use To sell it. But in year 11 and beyond, it's underwater. This should red flag anyone that manages money for a living, but I guess since it's Obama, you have no problem with it? I wouldn't call that fuzzy math, I'd call it no math disingenuous and a big lie.

As you said about Gitmo, closing it was out of his hands. It still doesn't take away from the fact that it is now a broken promise and a lie. So why press for details on what exactly Romney will cut? Those specifics are even more out of his hands than closing Gitmo was out of Obama's hands. You discount Obama's lie about Gitmo, but press Romney to make promises he can't keep. Totally unfair and Romney won't fall into that trap. Sorry.

I'll take Romney being vague over Obama being a liar.

[kcshocker11]

Did Obama use good math when he hatched Obamacare? Let's take a closer look. We tax businesses for ten years to pay for six years worth of spending. It balances over ten years, and that is the standard they tried to use To sell it. But in year 11 and beyond, it's underwater. This should red flag anyone that manages money for a living, but I guess since it's Obama, you have no problem with it? I wouldn't call that fuzzy math, I'd call it no math disingenuous and a big lie.

As you said about Gitmo, closing it was out of his hands. It still doesn't take away from the fact that it is now a broken promise and a lie. So why press for details on what exactly Romney will cut? Those specifics are even more out of his hands than closing Gitmo was out of Obama's hands. You discount Obama's lie about Gitmo, but press Romney to make promises he can't keep. Totally unfair and Romney won't fall into that trap. Sorry.

I'll take Romney being vague over Obama being a liar.

Not sure where your getting your facts on Obamacare- projections are it will bring costs down and the CBO says it will reduce the deficit(although not as much as it did at first thought). Now lets say your right, did you estimated the tax increases compared to the skyrocking healthcare cost increase per year under the old system Did you figure out the amounts of taxpayer dollars used to treat for free people who are uninsured at the emergency rooms. How about the cost of bankruptcies brought about by the old system. How about the personal costs of 50 mil uninsured. Did you figure the costs of preventive care savings now available under Obamacare. How about the savings to seniors by closing the drug donut hole.
No system is perfect! I personally have known two people who lost their jobs because they became sick, couldnt afford cobra payments and dead from cancer. The old system is a disaster, and believe it or not a terribly expensive way to manage healthcare.
I agree its not what I wanted, I want Universal Health care, I have Obamacare its not perfect but its a start.

To call Gitmo a lie is to imply he knew in advance that it couldnt be done. You have facts others dont have? The NY Times and others would love to have them. I think it would make front page news and sell lots of papers.

[MoValley John]

Not sure where your getting your facts on Obamacare- projections are it will bring costs down and the CBO says it will reduce the deficit. To call Gitmo a lie is implies he knew in advance that it couldnt be done. You have facts others dont have? The NY Times and others would love to have them. I think it would make front page news and sell lots of papers.

Everybody knew that Obamacare spending was to be phased in. The Taxes began immediately, but the government has yet to provide any additional coverage. They have mandated private coverage and other facets of the bill, but have yet to spend. This is exactly how the CBO scored it as deficit neutral. Keep in mind, the CBO did not, and more importantly cannot score anything outside of the parameters presented. During the debates, the Republicans Wanted it scored out 15 years but were denied.

I wish you were more informed than you presented yourself in your previous post. As I said, Obamacare does not add to the deficit in the first 10 years, unfortunately, in year 11, it's underwater. Pure smoke and mirrors.

Linkage:
http://m.npr.org/story/156659733?url=/2012/07/12/156659733/weekly-standard-obamacare-cost-estimates-rise

[MoValley John]

http://m.npr.org/story/156659733?url=/2012/07/12/156659733/weekly-standard-obamacare-cost-estimates-rise

[MoValley John]

More:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031412-604400-cbo-obamacare-cost-double-obama-vow.htm?p=full

[MoValley John]

Even more::::

http://m.lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-03-15/congressional-budget-office-reveals-fraudulent-cost-estimates

[MoValley John]

I could go on and on, cite sources forever on this, but you are happy with the dishonest math Obama used to pass this mess, yet demand Romney get specific on cuts he has yet to negotiate.

Total double standard.

[kcshocker11]

http://m.npr.org/story/156659733?url...estimates-rise

Weekly Standard/Repub congress? It probably will cost more, but in fairness we dont know in 11 years a lot can change - as Mitt will say will adjust as we go along. As far as being informed, I told you I wanted Universal Healthcare. I stated other factors that should be weighted in. You like to just call people who dont agree with you liars and uninformed. That is why I rarely come here anymore. Later dude good luck to Mitt!

[Capitol Shock II]

I think most liberals see finances as a zero sum game where the only way somebody gets rich is if they take it from someone else. What Romney is proposing is that the rate reduction will generate more taxes for the government because it will increase economic activity. There's no way of knowing how much but in the past everytime the tax rate is reduced economic activity, jobs and investment increase.

So yes, if you believe that a tax rate reduction won't lead to increased economic activity and more tax being collected, Romney's plan doesn't make sense mathematically. But you don't make sense if you believe that lowering taxes doesn't inspire more taxes being paid.

I have read the explanation of this plan in many places including the Heritage Foundation's website which has reviewed the plan thoroughly. In addition, it was the same suggestion that Simpson Bowles came up to generate more tax revenue.

[Capitol Shock II]

Geez kc, after going back and reading your posts.... I think that you've had way too much of the Obama cool-aid. How anyone can look at this mess we are in and support Barack Hussein is beyond me. I would support Hillary Clinton if she was running against him. Things are sooo bad right now that I've come to the conclusion, as crazy as it sounds, that all of this is deliberate. If you were President, and you failed on every attempt you made to improve things, we probably wouldn't be in as bad of condition as we are now.

I am sincerely worried about we are now. Our fiscal position has become an issue of National Security, has made us weak and vulnerable. And that's just one issue.

[Kung Wu]

First off tax rate legislation is done separate from elimination of deductions. Its possible to have a rate reduction put in place and have all or some deductions not make it through the House and Senate.

So what? He's telling you what he's going to push for just like Obama is. Obama isn't giving anybody a blow-by-blow description of how he's going to implement his policy, he's just telling you what his agenda is.

Second it is impossible to eliminate enough deductions to pay for a across the board tax rate cut that large, there arent enough deductions in the tax code.

And he never once said that it would. He said that growing the economy makes up the difference. Those tax cuts happen over a 10 year period -- so it will be easy to watch the economy and revenues to make sure they are growing at the required rate to cover the reductions.

This is a pie in the sky bs proposal that would never see the light of day. The only means left to pay for this boondoggle would be cut spending on big 3(not gonna happen) or raise some other form of revenue.

No, if it doesn't work he'll just empty your personal bank account and we'll be fine. Sacrifice KC!

This would further be complicated by the elimination of the amt, estate tax and no increase in cap gains(all which Mitt has run on the last year I believe).

No, those are all incorporated into the fantasy $5T number (which is actually $4.7T if I remember, and Obama rounded it up). From where I stand, the real "cut" is around $3.5T. Remainder of which is to be made up with economic growth (adding people to labor force and growing their salaries).

I can hear it now, oh KC how do you know, well I spent 30 yrs in the tax business both as a owner of several tax prep businesses and I worked for the largest tax shelter organization the world as client services manager, where I wrote and admin tax shelters to the riches people in the world during the hayday of tax shelters the 1980's.

See I KNEW we could just go after your bank account and cover it!!