Romney, The Inevitable Nominee

[Shady]

As for Loan defaulting you really think the richest nation in the world who taxes people who make a million or more at 15% is going to default?

That's just completely untrue. Why do you continue to misrepresent the truth? The captial gains tax rate is 15%. That's not the highest income tax rate. That's the captial gains tax rate. The income tax rate for somebody making a million or more is 35%. Only captial gains is taxed with the capital gains rate. Stop the lying already.

[punked]

That's just completely untrue. Why do you continue to misrepresent the truth? The captial gains tax rate is 15%. That's not the highest income tax rate. That's the captial gains tax rate. The income tax rate for somebody making a million or more is 35%. Only captial gains is taxed with the capital gains rate. Stop the lying already.

Doesn't matter what the tax rate is Shady, it is all about what the average ACTUALLY pay. Remember that age old problem of Greece? They had a sustainable tax system just no one paid those taxes. The top 400 people in the US who are wealthy pay 18% on the money they earn every year. That says it all, again if America wanted a Balanced budget tomorrow with very few cuts they could do it. They might have to close the loopholes so that those who make above 1 million a year pay what Shady thinks they pay, and Business might have to pay more then the lowest taxes they have had to pay in the HISTORY OF MODERN AMERICA. America could however do it tomorrow if people actually cared about the debt but no one does, and why should they?

Edited February 5, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

if America wanted a Balanced budget tomorrow with very few cuts they could do it.

More nonsense. Closing so-called loopholes, and raising tax rates won't balance the budget. In fact, raising tax rates on the so-called rich to what they were under President Clinton would gain you about %70 billion dollars per year. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. Do the math.

And you're still not understanding the difference between income from capital gains, and regular income.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

More nonsense. Closing so-called loopholes, and raising tax rates won't balance the budget. In fact, raising tax rates on the so-called rich to what they were under President Clinton would gain you about %70 billion dollars per year. The deficit is $1.2 trillion. Do the math.

And you're still not understanding the difference between income from capital gains, and regular income.

Come on Shady don't be daft. Again the US has the lowest top tax rate they have had going back to the great depression, the lowest business tax rate going back to the great depression. During Eisenhower the top tax rate was 90%. If America wanted tomorrow they could balance their budget. It wouldn't be good for growth, it wouldn't be the right solution doing it instantaneously but they could do it.

As The Brookings institute points out from the end of Clinton till now federal revenue fell around 4% of its Share of GDP. Meaning that if the government took in as much now as it did under Clinton revenue in a 15 Trillion dollar economy would be 4% more which is 6 HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. There I just cut your deficit in half, now let the economy recover from the recession that number goes up more, and have a manageable debt that modest cuts to some programs (the military, earmarks etc.) could easily address. Done Shady.

If we look at the history it tells us something to. After 1993 when the top tax rate was moved form 31% to 39% growth shot through the roof. This kinda shoots a whole in the theory of all tax increases kill growth as well that you are about to give. Fact is America can at anytime solve its own debt problems which is why people don't care about American debt and give them plenty of money to spend.

Edited February 5, 2012 by punked

[Michael Hardner]

Ever consider that what is ridiculous to you, is actually important to other people?

Sure.

Is it just possible that you don't understand them, and by this misunderstanding you take a stance calling what they say "stupid"?

Yes, it's possible. Feel free to call me out if you think this is the case.

It's possible.

I'm wrong all the time, of course, just like everyone else.

Tell me how that promotes respectful, intelligent debate. But if you won't see that, and continue to insist that only your views are valid, giving you the exclusive right to call other views ridiculous hyperbole, tiresome, we need training wheels, we are bleating sheep, well!

I don't think only my views are valid. The reason I'm on here is because I want my views challenged by intelligent and reasoned individuals who disagree with me.

I stand by my right to dismiss arguments that I feel are just plain bad. Other people do it all the time, and I don't hold it against them to make that judgment. I may, however, call on them to explain why they feel the way they do.

You're just as much a part of the problem around here as anyone else who does that. Thanks for facilitating.

We need to have respect for posters, but not their ideas. I see people dismissing ideas all the time, and I mostly let it go unless there's an explicit insult in there.

Anyway, don't want you to feel I'm "picking on you" today, just would like to see your feet touch the ground a bit more. Yes you are imperfect, Michael Hardner. Hard for a humanist to believe, I guess. Movin on...

I don't feel like you're picking on me at all. You want answers and I'm willing to give them.

I think that the debate we have here usually rises above the level of just shouting slogans back and forth, which is why I dismiss those types of arguments by left and right. Am I 100% fair in my judgments and how I post them ? No human is.

[Shady]

Come on Shady don't be daft. Again the US has the lowest top tax rate they have had going back to the great depression

That's completely false. It was lower under Reagan, and Bush Sr in the late 80s and early 90s. It's also the same tax rates that yielded a budget deficit of only $163 billion dollars in 2007, only a few short years ago. The problem is the massive, unprecedented spending of the Obama administration, making FDR look like an amateur.

[Shady]

This is a great teaching tool for some of you that seem to think that raising taxes will solve the budget deficit. Here are some highlights:

Starting on January 1st, taking 100% of the profits from Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart will pay for the entire federal budget, up until January 4th 9:00 am.

Taking every penny of profit from the other 498 companies of the Fortune 500, pays for the federal budget, from January 4th to February 9th.

Confiscating all of the profits from Major League Sports pays for the federal budget from February 9th to February 10th.

And confiscating every penny from every person making more than $250,000 dollars will get you from February 10th to July 2nd!

[punked]

That's completely false. It was lower under Reagan, and Bush Sr in the late 80s and early 90s. It's also the same tax rates that yielded a budget deficit of only $163 billion dollars in 2007, only a few short years ago. The problem is the massive, unprecedented spending of the Obama administration, making FDR look like an amateur.

Shady the 2007 budget was sustained on private borrowing remember that whole housing bubble thing? It has to do with low interest rates, and predatory borrowing costs that made the US economy look stronger then it is.

It wasn't Lower under Reagan Shady or Bush Sr, see because again you might be talking about top income tax rates that doesn't into account captial gains taxes (just putting it back to 2003 levels never mind the 35% it was under Reagan Brookings says brings in 40 billion a year), corporate taxes, Bush cut the estate tax which could be put back in place Brookings says this can bring back 50 billion dollars a year, Eliminate bonus depreciation provisions which came in place in 2002 would save some 30 billion, if one was to eliminate the Social security tax cap you are looking at 150 billion Shady.

Again you are acting like there has been one tax cut in the last 20 years when there hasn't. There has been many, you and your side choose to focus on one and say (look even if we got rid of that one it would only bring us 100 billion closer) fact is there are many many tax breaks which could considered. The fact stands that if the US wanted to tomorrow there could be no deficit, and the numbers agree with that. You choose to disagree because you don't want to have a real argument about raising taxes.

[punked]

This is a great teaching tool for some of you that seem to think that raising taxes will solve the budget deficit. Here are some highlights

yah super great know what it taught me? Of 30 million companies in the US if 3 of them gave everything they earned to the government the government would run for 2 months, can you imagine what would happen if they all paid? BTW it is quite obvious the facts you cite are made up but should I expect from a liar like you right.

This one stuck out for me you said:

"And confiscating every penny from every person making more than $250,000 dollars will get you from February 10th to July 2nd!"

That right there people above 250,000 dollars is the 1%. Because of the OWS movement the media has covered how much money they are worth quite extensively so we know for a fact the top 1% controls 40 of America Wealth if you think 40% of Americas wealth is less then a Trillion dollars then you are more out to lunch then the made up facts you state. Domestic assets inside the US are 150 trillion along, you do that math buddy.

[Michael Hardner]

That right there people above 250,000 dollars is the 1%. Because of the OWS movement the media has covered how much money they are worth quite extensively so we know for a fact the top 1% controls 40 of America Wealth if you think 40% of Americas wealth is less then a Trillion dollars then you are more out to lunch then the made up facts you state. Domestic assets inside the US are 150 trillion along, you do that math buddy.

We have a factual disagreement on the thread between punked & Bill Whittle.

[punked]

We have a factual disagreement on the thread between punked & Bill Whittle.

Considering his argument is to pretend like the current tax structure doesn't exist his argument is crazy sauce. He acts like the Us doesn't already bring in 2.5 Trillion in tax revenue, at this point in time the government is fully funded until September, you don't need to get through the whole year you need to get through another 2 Months which he points out is quite easy then have some manageable cuts. Also his numbers don;t even make sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Because of the OWS movement the media has covered how much money they are worth quite extensively so we know for a fact the top 1% controls 40 of America Wealth if you think 40% of Americas wealth is less then a Trillion dollars then you are more out to lunch then the made up facts you state. Domestic assets inside the US are 150 trillion along, you do that math buddy.

That doesn't mean government can tax all that wealth. There simply is not enough wage and investment income to tax wealth away from the 1% to balance mandatory and discretionary outlays over the long term. Taxes have to be raised across the board.

[punked]

That doesn't mean government can tax all that wealth. There simply is not enough wage and investment income to tax wealth away from the 1% to balance mandatory and discretionary outlays over the long term. Taxes have to be raised across the board.

You are only agreeing with me which I am fine with,

[bush_cheney2004]

You are only agreeing with me which I am fine with,

No, the balance must all be met with spending cuts. Thanks for agreeing with me!

[punked]

No, the balance must all be met with spending cuts. Thanks for agreeing with me!

Oh no I do not agree with that. I believe spending cuts have their place but also going back to a sustainable tax system is going to help out a lot. No cuts until someone agrees to a sustainable tax system for sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh no I do not agree with that. I believe spending cuts have their place but also going back to a sustainable tax system is going to help out a lot. No cuts until someone agrees to a sustainable tax system for sure.

Sorry, but the math won't allow such nonsense. Cuts must be made regardless of tax policy.

[jbg]

Come on Shady don't be daft. Again the US has the lowest top tax rate they have had going back to the great depression, the lowest business tax rate going back to the great depression. During Eisenhower the top tax rate was 90%. If America wanted tomorrow they could balance their budget. It wouldn't be good for growth, it wouldn't be the right solution doing it instantaneously but they could do it.

The statutory tax rates were indeed 90%. There were so many exemptions and loopholes that the effective rate was far lower. Further, as Kennedy taught us that rate did penalize growth.

[dre]

Sorry, but the math won't allow such nonsense. Cuts must be made regardless of tax policy.

There wont be any meaningfull cuts until theres absolutely no choice. If you want to address the defecit you have to do it through trade policy, because its trade policy not domestic policy thats driving spending.

The US will stop/curtail spending once it cannot sell treasuries, and not a second sooner. Picture a housewife thats addicted to the home shopping network... shell stop buying stuff once you take away her credit cards, not before.

Edited February 6, 2012 by dre

[dre]

The statutory tax rates were indeed 90%. There were so many exemptions and loopholes that the effective rate was far lower. Further, as Kennedy taught us that rate did penalize growth.

No economic growth has very little to do with tax rates.

[dre]

This is a great teaching tool for some of you that seem to think that raising taxes will solve the budget deficit. Here are some highlights:

Anyhow you look at it... If American people and businesses paid enough in taxes to fund their government the deficit would be zero. Theres going to be spending cuts AND tax hikes... But none of that stuff will happen as long as the US can easily sell treasuries.

[punked]

Anyhow you look at it... If American people and businesses paid enough in taxes to fund their government the deficit would be zero. Theres going to be spending cuts AND tax hikes... But none of that stuff will happen as long as the US can easily sell treasuries.

That has been what I have been saying this whole thread.

[dre]

That has been what I have been saying this whole thread.

The reality is that the US government will not fix this problem. They are completely unable, and unwilling to do so.

Neither party has the balls to propose across the board tax hikes, and the only cuts republicans are willing to make is to Democrat programs, and Vice Versa.

Remember the automatic triggered cuts, that were supposed to happen if the two parties couldnt agree on deficit reduction? Remember how they played that big game of chicken? Well, they simply got together afterwards and removed the triggers so there wouldnt be any cuts at all

Anyhow... they will keep spending until someone takes away their credit card, end of story.

[waldo]

looks like the inevitable isn't... Romney's weekend 'wins' are being directly challenged on separate fronts. Santorum is claiming the CPAC straw poll was rigged by Romney supporters... Paul is claiming much the same in regards the Maine "caucus" vote.

stronger rumblings of the likelihood of a brokered convention coming forward - talk of allowing a real preferred candidate to be drafted... like, Jeb "the next one" Bush, or Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan. Others?

[olpfan1]

Ron Paul will never win so I hope Romney does

yes the guy is still a religious nut but hes the least crazy of them all

and if elected he probably wont do anything too crazy like bomb Iran

its only tough talk to his base

Romney could also take votes away from Obama .. hes not a hardcore repub

[BubberMiley]

Romney could also take votes away from Obama .. hes not a hardcore repub

It's true. While I would be very surprised to see Romney win a general election (because evangelicals don't consider Mormons to be christians), he's clearly pandering to the Republican base. I don't think he's any further right than Obama. They're both moderate, corporate lackies.