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.
Thing is, he won't get elected as dogcatcher if he starts singling out tax expenditures to eliminate.
So you really can't expect him to single them out, it would cost him his job. You really just have to trust Congress, which... hah.. that just felt funny to type.
If they haven't been decided yet, how can he put a number to them?
How does he know that it is even possible to get to that number?
And why that number? Why not $5.2 or $3.9?
What's so special about $4.3?
Because $4.3 trillion is required to offset lowering tax rates. A number can be put to them because loopholes are a number much larger than $4.3 trillion. So what he is saying is, we will trim loopholes by $4.3 trillion. That is hardly undoable. You are not in favor of loopholes, are you?
Last edited by shorebaby; 05-02-2012 at 10:01 AM..
Because $4.3 trillion is required to offset lowering tax rates. A number can be put to them because loopholes are a number much larger than $4.3 trillion. So what he is saying is, we will trim loopholes by $4.3 trillion. That is hardly undoable. You are not in favor of loopholes, are you?
No.
Not in favor of voodoo economics either.
If loopholes are a number much larger than $4.3, why not go bigger?
Why not close all of them?
Because $4.3 trillion is required to offset lowering tax rates. A number can be put to them because loopholes are a number much larger than $4.3 trillion. So what he is saying is, we will trim loopholes by $4.3 trillion. That is hardly undoable. You are not in favor of loopholes, are you?
As I recall, "conservatives" called addressing loop holes (when President Obama proposed it), an effective tax increase. That? You still haven't mentioned the loop holes and targeted audience, as proposed by Ryan. In other words, my previous post to you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Has he outlined which loop holes? Or, is he shifting the blame on "congress" to somehow come up with a great plan for HIS plan? In other words, show me the math.
The decrease was caused by a decrease in Government Spending and expenditures. Private GDP was at 3.4%.
Thank you! Something I always find amusing is that "conservatives" forget to differentiate between private versus public+private growth, when it comes to GDP or job growth. For example, if private sector payroll grew by 200K while government payroll shrunk by 20K, they will never use 200K for employment growth, but 180K. Details often don't help their cause.
That chart is from a blogger.....and since when did it ever matter to separate GDP.....nice try.
Thank you for proving my point made in post above yours, that y'all are sham when it comes to "shrink government". So, why exactly is it a bad idea to evaluate growth or decline in purely private enterprise for making a proper call on state of the economy and influence of government policies?
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.
