The First Presidential Debate

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-25-2008
The First Presidential Debate
68
Thu, 10-04-2012 - 8:30am

I wasn't going to watch the debate because my mind is already made up but I did anyways. I thought President Obama was horrible. He kept repeating strange statements and he didn't appear to know what he was talking about. It was like he had rehearsed for a different topic and was determined to stick to it no matter what. I'm so disappointed in the President. This is the guy who has been running our country for the last four years?

 

Brenda

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 9:08pm
Tax cuts are part of the budgetary process. If outlays are committed, then tax cuts must be offset by outlay reduction. How does Romney balance his tax cuts to current expenditures? I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. Why do you always deflect?

How is tax revenues as part of GDP meaningful when not considering expenditures? It was relatively high during the Clinton admin (20%) when we had more revenue than expenditures. Lower in GWB admin when expenditures were more than revenue.

I want to debate Romney's tax plan, and it seems you can offer to evidence to defend it. Game over.

Feel free to start another thread on Obama's plans., but I 've got to say that I'm mildly hopeful that things are getting better, Dow's up, unemployments down, and unlike Europe, the economy is growing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 8:39pm
Tax cuts are not paid for as tax money is not owned by the government and given at their largess to us , the serfs.
Federal spending is the problem, how many times and ways do I have to say it? Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is not meaningless, what are you talking about? It shows that we collect just as much money under high tax rates as low tax rates. It means everything.
Now, again, let's talk about the Obama plan going forward, what is it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 2:48pm
I have no clue how this is a response to my previous post.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 2:47pm

Deflection to your right wing talking points. Can you support how Romney's tax cuts will be paid for?

Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is a meaningless metric. Why won't you discuss tax revenues vs fed spending? That metric has real meaning for long term budgetary considerations.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 2:37pm
You disagree with historical data that says revenue as part of GDP has averaged 18 or 19 % despite tax rates? Those are not "Republican talking points" they are fact.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Check out the rate of spending over the past 50 years, notice an upward trend. Could that be a problem?

Now defend the worst president that has ever presided over this country and his economic policies. Defend the fact that the rate of growth is down to 1.3 % in the second quarter of 2012. That is Obama's economy. Defend the low number of people in the work force, under employed or working part time. None of these facts are Republican talking points, they are what this country is enduring under the Keynesian policies and hyper regulation of Obama. Don't want to discuss the crappy Obama economy, then defend what happened in Benghazi, the lies and the coverup.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 10:16am
I'm done responding to fact free republican talking points. Please offer some proof that tax cuts grow the economy and without increasing the deficit.

You can't, because they don't.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Thu, 10-11-2012 - 9:33am
"The budget has to balance"
First of all, what budget? One has not been voted on in the Senate for three years. Secondly the budget hasn't balanced for how many years.
Revenue has been fairly steady as a percentage of GDP for the past 50 years despite tax rates. (well except for the past 4 years. ) It has averaged about 18 or 19%. so the question remains, why take more money out of the private sector if it doesn't necessarily grow the rate of revenue collected? I would rather see the money in the private sector creating jobs and growth.
The economy grew under Clinton not because of higher taxes, but rather because of the tech boom and a good economy, which went bust in 2000 and a resulted in a recession.
Bartlett is not being entirely honest when he says the CBO claims "For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011." That 2.8 trillion for instance, includes the 2008 stimulus. The CBO also concludes: "In fact, for most legislation, there is no way to identify the actual impact on spending or revenues over time, and a retroactive analysis of actual costs is not possible"
Now tell me what Obama plans to do, to grow the economy besides raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires and hire teachers. That is all I've heard from him, do you have any more information?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Wed, 10-10-2012 - 7:40pm
The budget has to balance, so revenue must meet expenses. Do you really disagree with budget accounting 101? We've been unbalanced in every administration since Eisenhower, with the exception of the Clinton admin and Clinton raised taxes and the economy still grew at record rates. Growth is affected by a number of factors and taxes just one part of the equation.

<Tax cuts do not pay for themselves as evidenced during the Reagan and GWB; revenue grew by about 10% of the value of the tax cuts - that's a 90% discrepancy between cuts and revenue" Really! show me the data. Tax rates have generally declined since Roosevelt was president, yet revenue has increased, even when adjusted for the obvious increase in population and inflation.>

The data is there for all to see that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/06/17/No-Gov-Pawlenty-Tax-Cuts-Dont-Pay-for-Themselves.aspx#page1

Raising rates will increase revenue - Look to Reagan and Clinton admins.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2009
Wed, 10-10-2012 - 6:55pm
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, because they don't have to "pay" for themselves. The government doesn't own me, nor do they own my property of which my money is part of my property. Income taxes are paid to the government but they are not entitled to more than the law requires. "Tax cuts do not pay for themselves as evidenced during the Reagan and GWB; revenue grew by about 10% of the value of the tax cuts - that's a 90% discrepancy between cuts and revenue" Really! show me the data. Tax rates have generally declined since Roosevelt was president, yet revenue has increased, even when adjusted for the obvious increase in population and inflation. So why would we want the federal government to raise rates when it won't necessarily raise more revenue. Newsbusters blog had the letter that I wanted, find it somewhere else if ou wish..
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Wed, 10-10-2012 - 5:28pm
The deficit increases because we spend more than we generate in revenue. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves as evidenced during the Reagan and GWB; revenue grew by about 10% of the value of the tax cuts - that's a 90% discrepancy between cuts and revenue. What spending cuts or tax loophole reform does Mr Romney propose to makeup for revenue lost to the proposed tax cuts? He's very specific on the 20% reduction in rates, but his options on the significants cuts required would be so unpopular that he wouldn't get elected if he endorsed them before the election.

A NewsBusters blog is not a legitimate source for business climate trends, but Jon Stewart has a great take on the wizardry of Romney's budget proposals! http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos

Pages