2012 Presidential Race

[chuck34]

That sticks in the craw a bit. As though his campaign wasn't funded by other, different, no doubt quite powerful interests!

Or that other "ordinary Americans" somehow didn't contribute to the "other side".

[chuck34]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that most exit poling showed that the #1 concern among voters was economic issues. But in the "analysis" that has gone on since the election the focus seems to be placed only on women and minorities? I suppose that means that most voters see economic issues to be simply having contraception and abortions paid for out of the Federal budget, allowing anyone into this country at anytime whether or not they have a SS# so they can pay income taxes, paying for everyone to go to college, on and on like the Treasury is bottomless pit of money. Just tax the heck of "the rich". They'll pay for it all. Then what happens after the 9-17 days of Federal funding that will pay for ends? It's just sad to me that people don't see the reality of the situation: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF!!

I'm sure that's just me. I'm the one that isn't facing reality. I'm the one that's "too extreme".

[Gregor-y]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.

Republicans painted themselves into a corner over taxes in 1994 and haven't been able to back out yet. It's treated as a faith as strong as some candidates' abortion positions and is just as senseless to the general population but enforced upon the whole party. Sadly too many Republicans have signed the equivalent of a 'loyalty oath' regarding taxes just be be allowed to represent the party, so they're stuck, as I say.

[chuck34]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.

Republicans painted themselves into a corner over taxes in 1994 and haven't been able to back out yet. It's treated as a faith as strong as some candidates' abortion positions and is just as senseless to the general population but enforced upon the whole party. Sadly too many Republicans have signed the equivalent of a 'loyalty oath' regarding taxes just be be allowed to represent the party, so they're stuck, as I say.

What you just wrote is well reasoned and logical. That is until you do the math. We can raise taxes on "the rich" to 100%. At that point we either have enough money to pay for Federal spending for 9-17 days, depending upon the accounting method. What then?

We currently borrow about 40% of our total budget that's 146 days if you spread it evenly. So now under this 100% tax on the rich we bring that down to 129 days (best case, and using static economic theory). What then?

Women's issues, abortion, immigration, education, any other issue you want to bring up doesn't mean a damn when our debt is more than 100% of GDP. How much longer do you want to pretend that we can give away free contraception for all? Free abortions? 2+years of unemployment benefits? Free healthcare for all? US citizens already owe more per capita than Greeks. How much farther in debt do we need to be before people wake up?

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.

[Gregor-y]

The US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. On that there is do debate, only posturing and party politics.

I'm not going to quote the full text because your case lies on this point.

This is your opinion and not a fact. Spending isn't an issue if you have revenue, and revenue isn't an issue if you're not spending too much. We're always going to be spending and raising revenue. The posturing as you call it is simply politics, which is a compromise on the best balance of the two. The problem Republicans have had lately is their inability to make any kind of agreement based on an absolutist opinion similar to your own rather than trying to identify areas for compromise. That along with the political intent of denying Obama a second term. One Republican position down, one to go.

[Starter]

Romney didn't have a lock on economic issues. Just cutting programs without even entertaining raising revenues (other than unspecified loopholes) including Ryan's various Social Security schemes weren't any more fundamentally sound (and probably worse since so much was never specified) than raising taxes while reducing fewer benefits. Given what the President offered during the last debt ceiling crisis Republicans got everything they could have hoped for and still didn't budge just to avoid any shred of cooperation.

I beg to differ. My question to you is: At what point would you say enough taxes, we're already giving too much? Obviously it's not now. How about when you pay 20% of your income? 30%? 50%? 75%? Where would you draw the line? The unfortunate history is that politicians will spent as much as you let them get away with. All in the name of providing "services" of course. The truth is that they are just buying votes. One of the biggest mistakes in recent years was in not passing a line item veto. That would allow the President to pare out all the pork and special interest spending which is hidden away in almost every bill Congress passes. Then we could truly hold one person responsible if most of the BS spending wasn't cut.

The other crying need is for radical tax reform at the federal level. Any tax system which requires an army of lawyers and accountants to negotiate through the various provisions, as well as hidden benefits for special investments, is unfair to everybody. I don't mind paying more money in taxes. I should pay more if I make more. I just don't want to pay more proportionally. I am a firm proponent of the flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate with NO exemptions for anything.

[ShiftingGears]

What you just wrote is well reasoned and logical. That is until you do the math. We can raise taxes on "the rich" to 100%. At that point we either have enough money to pay for Federal spending for 9-17 days, depending upon the accounting method. What then?

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.

[Starter]

You are assuming people did not vote for Obama on an economic basis. Romney didn't exactly do a great job to convince people that he would do better. His proposed policy was vacuous and devoid of detail, which stopped at "I know how to create jobs", while at the same time wanting to increase military spending by $2 trillion and giving the impression of being very enthusiastic about a war in Iran. I think it is apparent why some people would be less than convinced.

Yoy didn't answer the "What then" question. Easy for all of us to point fingers, actually addressing the problem is more difficult. And Chuck is correct. You can tax the bejesus out of rich folks and you still won't make more than a dent in the deficit.

[ShiftingGears]

Yoy didn't answer the "What then" question. Easy for all of us to point fingers, actually addressing the problem is more difficult. And Chuck is correct. You can tax the bejesus out of rich folks and you still won't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Indeed I didn't - I incorrectly quoted Chuck's argument, which seemed to suggest that people didn't vote one way or another based on economic issues. I do not wish to weigh into addressing that question.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that most exit poling showed that the #1 concern among voters was economic issues. But in the "analysis" that has gone on since the election the focus seems to be placed only on women and minorities? I suppose that means that most voters see economic issues to be simply having contraception and abortions paid for out of the Federal budget, allowing anyone into this country at anytime whether or not they have a SS# so they can pay income taxes, paying for everyone to go to college, on and on like the Treasury is bottomless pit of money. Just tax the heck of "the rich". They'll pay for it all. Then what happens after the 9-17 days of Federal funding that will pay for ends? It's just sad to me that people don't see the reality of the situation: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS STUFF!!

I'm sure that's just me. I'm the one that isn't facing reality. I'm the one that's "too extreme".

How were Romneys economic plans any better?

Cut taxes for the rich, squeeze more tax from the middle classes and pray for economic growth? To balance the books with his tax cuts he would need to drastically cut spending or hope for GDP growth on a level not far from China's (6%+).

The current situation in the UK is a fine example of how cutting spending is the best way to stagnate your economy. The US ecomomy seems to be on the road to recovery thanks to Obama's sensible approach. If growth continues you will have the money to pay for the this stuff and invest in further growth.