Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is really sad. A politician proposes a mathematically impossible plan and the only response the OP can give is CONJECTURE over and over again. When the Republicans brought Ryan onboard, all the morons in the media were talking about his wonk status and how we'd really start talking about math, but that hasn't happened, and ignorance like this abounds. Please, explain to me how this plan can be revenue-neutral.
Even guys from the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute can't make it work:
Can the liberals make it work that we are spending more than we could ever tax? They don't even attempt to make that work mathematically. Why would the liberals be so opposed to helping the middle class that have suffered so much in the last 5 years?
I think I will be paying higher taxes no matter who wins and I accept that as my penalty for voting for Bush in 2000 (I wised up by 04 but then it was too late). But I have come to believe the Romney's goal is to completely dismantle all the social and fiscal progress we have made in this country since 1929. I prefer Obama. Fortunately, so do the majority of voters.
Can the liberals make it work that we are spending more than we could ever tax? They don't even attempt to make that work mathematically. Why would the liberals be so opposed to helping the middle class that have suffered so much in the last 5 years?
If either party was bold enough to cut defense spending, we wouldn't have a problem, but the industry is too strong and we're too invested in war.
The fact of the matter is, you're trying to defend a tax plan which does NOT work mathematically.
One more for pghquest, who is supposed to be "schooling" me:
The term Revenue Neutral implies changes in the tax laws that result in no change in the amount of revenue coming into the government's coffers. In other words, a tax proposal is revenue neutral if it neither increases nor decreases tax revenues when compared to existing law. For instance, a revenue neutral provision may require individuals to pay less tax, but corporations will pay correspondingly more taxes. The concept was the decisive factor in drafting the Tax Reform Act of 1986 “whereby provisions estimated to add revenue were offset by others estimated to reduce revenue, so that on paper the new bill would generate the same amount of revenue as the old tax laws.”
The one thing the Republicans have managed to edge out Democrats on is their slavish devotion to the interests of the rich. This is not about middle class families for Romney, it is simple supply-side economics, and it either increases the debt or it raises the burden on the lower and middle class.
It's funny how all the independent analysis directly contradicts the claims made in the OP. I guess facts really don't matter to right wing nut jobs.
Is Obama's spending neutral, or does it keep adding to the deficit? You wacky liberals talk out of both sides of you mouth. Why wouldn't you want to help the middle class working people? BTW All of the analysis you are looking at is only static reporting. These tax cut will be a great boost to the economy and generate robust growth that we have not seen with Obama's policies. That increases revenue.
That's not what revenue neutral means and that's not what he's saying. I'm not failing to comprehend your answer, it's literally incorrect. Revenue neutral refers to the federal government's intake of money. Every single article about this subject makes it clear, which is why I'm flabbergasted that you continue to make this argument.
If I'm discussing the amount YOU PAY into the federal government, and I say you'll pay revenue netral, then I'm talking about YOUR SHARE of the debt, not the TOTAL share
I'm still waiting for you to tell me how revenues to the federal government INCREASED after both Clinton, and Bush cut taxes..
You're no more flabbergasted than I am, because you keep babbling talking points and refuse to discuss YOUR points like an adult.. This thread deals with MIDDLE CLASS TAKE HOME PAY, not the federal deficit, and if want to hijack the thread to discuss the deficit, then fine.. I once again ask you how federal revenues INCREASED after tax cuts under both Clinton, and Bush..
Can the liberals make it work that we are spending more than we could ever tax? They don't even attempt to make that work mathematically. Why would the liberals be so opposed to helping the middle class that have suffered so much in the last 5 years?
Allowing people to keep their money, bad.. giving people food stamps because people have no money left to be taxed due to Democratic policies.. Good
If I'm discussing the amount YOU PAY into the federal government, and I say you'll pay revenue netral, then I'm talking about YOUR SHARE of the debt, not the TOTAL share
You haven't read a single thing I posted, or you're really slow. Romney has stated that his tax plan is revenue neutral. Your comments about people's share of the debt are incorrect. You're flat wrong. Find me a single analysis that talks about someone "paying revenue neutral". That literally makes no sense.
I've posted definitions of the term that a child could understand and you're still misunderstanding the term.
As I said, pointing out that this increases the middle class's take home pay is garbage, since his plan is mathematically impossible without increasing the debt or the taxes paid by that same middle class, all to provide more cuts for the wealthy. Keep embarrassing yourself talking about Bush and Clinton if you please. It's clear that you do not understand simple concepts and will argue past any facts provided in order to try to win an argument you've already lost.
The one thing the Republicans have managed to edge out Democrats on is their slavish devotion to the interests of the rich. This is not about middle class families for Romney, it is simple supply-side economics, and it either increases the debt or it raises the burden on the lower and middle class.
It is exactly for the middle class. It will give a huge increase in take home pay to the working middle class.
You don't understand that for every one point increase in GDP there is a $1T decrease in the debt over 20 years. Obama has produced a feeble rebound of 1.5%. With Romney's plan the growth could easily be 4-5%. Economic Growth Will Pay For Mitt Romney's Tax Cuts - Forbes
It is exactly for the middle class. It will give a huge increase in take home pay to the working middle class.
You don't understand that for every one point increase in GDP there is a $1T decrease in the debt over 20 years. Obama has produced a feeble rebound of 1.5%. With Romney's plan the growth could easily be 4-5%. Economic Growth Will Pay For Mitt Romney's Tax Cuts - Forbes
You know the sad part is that Romneys plan is very similar to the one the Obama debt commission came up with, and these left wing kooks are going bonkers..
Wealth redistribution is the destruction of wealth !
For over three years the element of class warfare has been the only
accomplishment of the Barack Hussein Obama administration as to
dealing with economic issues.
His zero executive experience prior to his entry to the WH clearly shows
The stock market has gone from under 8,000 to over 13,000 in his three years. Where is the wealth redistribution in that?
With four more years, the stock market might be over 20,000!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
