tenpoundsofcheese: I don't believe that is a valid reason at all.

Romney could make a LOT more money staying in the Private Equity business, than he can spending 10's of millions of of his own money and a year of his life to be President so he can get an extra 20% off his taxes.

Who cares what Romney could do? We're talking about what Romney is doing, and that's running for President on a tax plan that is to the right of Bush II. More tax cuts for the rich. Didn't work before, it won't work again. He will be the nominee and he will lose.

Cletus C.: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: but 0bama created 22,000,000 jobs, so he will win. And he killed 0sama.

He will win. Because all he'll have to do is point to Romney's tax plan. "More tax cuts for the rich? We tried that in the last decade, twice. The result was the slowest GDP and job growth of any administration since Eisenhower. Next." And Osama.

Interesting. Blame someone else for the sucky state of the economy. I wonder that has occurred to Team Obama.

It has certainly occurred to the Republicans.

Cletus C.: Interesting. Blame someone else for the sucky state of the economy. I wonder that has occurred to Team Obama.

What does blame have to do with anything? That's what happened. We cut taxes for the rich twice and received the worst GDP and job growth in 75 years because of it. And Romney wants to do it a third time.

tenpoundsofcheese: My point is that Romney believes in his tax plan because he believes in the economics around it, NOT because it will personally enrich him.

Which doesn't make it any better, because we tried his plan twice and we know the result.

So not only does his tax plan benefit himself immensely, which is surely going to go over well with struggling middle class voters, he also believes in the economics around it - despite the clear and recent evidence against whatever positive effects he claims it will have.

Obama will wipe the floor with him using his own tax proposal.

This thread is the most fun I've had watching someone make a fool of themself since yesterday.

DarnoKonrad: they're not typically people who will be broken by the price of food or energy.

From your link: President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004,

There. Now please shut up.

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: My point is that Romney believes in his tax plan because he believes in the economics around it, NOT because it will personally enrich him.

Which doesn't make it any better, because we tried his plan twice and we know the result.

0bama doesn't seem to know the result, since he extended the tax cuts.

.

Your last post was actually semi-intelligent and I thought perhaps I had been too quick to write you off as a moron.

Then you posted this.

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama doesn't seem to know the result, since he extended the tax cuts.

In exchange for DADT, START, tax cuts for the middle class (stimulative), and extending unemployment benefits (stimulative). Another example of his pragmatism. Not a bad trade.

DarnoKonrad: Wendy's Chili: DarnoKonrad: they're not typically people who will be broken by the price of food or energy.

From your link: President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004,

There. Now please shut up.

Yes, a clear minority of that demographic. And since you've ceased being civil, you shut the fark up derp stick.

Listen, you f*cking retard. I said "but many of those folks agreed with their policies" and your own link confirms that millions of them voted this way. I don't know what you think you're arguing against, but it's not what I wrote.

DarnoKonrad: Wendy's Chili: DarnoKonrad: Wendy's Chili: DarnoKonrad: they're not typically people who will be broken by the price of food or energy.

From your link: President George W. Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004,

There. Now please shut up.

Yes, a clear minority of that demographic. And since you've ceased being civil, you shut the fark up derp stick.

Listen, you f*cking retard. I said "but many of those folks agreed with their policies" and your own link confirms that millions of them voted this way. I don't know what you think you're arguing against, but it's not what I wrote.


No you listen you f*cking retard:

in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

Next time define exactly what you mean by "many." How about that you f*cking retard? Before you start hauling out the insults you f*cking retard.

So you're arguing against something I never said or even implied. That a "majority" agreed with his policies.

Go work on your reading comprehension and then come back and see us.

tenpoundsofcheese: Got it. Tax cuts are stimulative.
I agree.

Not all tax cuts are equal. Tax cuts for the middle class are stimulative. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not, as the evidence from the Bush administration shows.

mod3072: Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to inherit a vast fortune and then hire somebody to manage it for you? Romney has spent literally hours over his lifetime acquiring, growing, and maintaining his wealth. If any of you slackers had half of his motivation and work ethic, you would have been born rich, invested your hard earned money, and then lobbied Congress for lower taxes so that your wealth could grow faster. Instead, you were busy standing around in line at the unemployment office and buying crack with your food stamps. You have no idea what it's like to carry around the burdens that Mitt has had to struggle with all of his life. Did you know that the government steals almost 50% of his hard earned money in taxes? That's money that he inherited through his own hard work, sweat, blood and tears, and then the feds just swoop in, steal half of it, and give it to losers like you. Mitt knows the struggles of the common man. He's lived that life, never knowing if he needed to buy another vacation home or find a new offshore tax shelter in order to avoid paying his taxes. Those are struggles we all deal with. We should not be attacking this self-made, noble Job Creator, we should be celebrating him as a true American success story. This is a country where anybody who is born into a vast fortune can, through hard work and sacrifice, become even more wealthy. It's the American dream, and it's achievable for anyone who is born to rich parents. That's what this country is all about. And you libs just want to tear him down for achieving what you were too lazy and/or stoned to do. It's sad, really.

Hey. Scoring crack is hard.

I_C_Weener: Lando Lincoln: I_C_Weener: That complaining about the influence of money or business acumen or financial knowledge is pointless when the Democrat candidate has wrapped himself in the same despite promises to the contrary.

BSABSVR?

Better than BSABSVD. Or in the case of those vilifying Romney for being rich, DAHJAGS. (Dems Aren't Hypocrites Just Ask Goldman Sachs)

We're not vilifying Romney for being rich. We're vilifying Romney and people like him because they have successfully lobbied Congress to give the rich special tax breaks. They used their money to game the system even more in their favor. And they're still not satisfied. They still want more tax cuts while giving poor and middle class people a tax increase.

Your argument of "Obama hired a Bain Capital guy so he's just as bad as Romney!" is dumb.

tenpoundsofcheese: Citation that not all tax cuts are equal?

What is the break point between a stimulative tax break and a non-stimulative one? CItation?

Do you believe that the rich just put their money in the mattress or a big room in their basement ala Scrooge McDuck.

The citation is the Bush administration. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts heavily favored the rich. And we saw the result. It's no mystery.

Also, from Mark Zandi, former economic adviser to McCain and one of the chief economists in the country.

Headso's graph in text form:

Bang for the Buck = estimated one year $ change in GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending.

Tax Cuts

Non-refundable lump sum tax rebate 1.01
Refundable lump sum tax rebate 1.22

Temporary tax cuts

Payroll tax holiday 1.28
Across the board tax cut 1.03
Accelerated depreciation 0.25

Permanent tax cuts

End alternative minimum tax patch 0.49
Make Bush income tax cuts permanent 0.31
Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.38
Cut corporate tax rate 0.30

Spending Increases

Extending unemployment insurance benefits 1.63
Temporary increase in food stamps 1.73
General aid to state governments 1.38
Increased infrastructure spending 1.59

Link (new window)

Because the Bush income tax cuts heavily favored the rich making them permanent decreases GDP per dollar cut. Same with cutting dividend and capital gains - something that benefits mainly the wealthy because that's where their money is.

A payroll tax cut, which focuses on the middle and lower classes (because payroll taxes are capped and are thus regressive) increases GDP per dollar cut. Those people generally spend that money because they have to. Same for UI and SNAP benefits. Not all tax cuts are equal. Economists agree and the last decade proved that.

mod3072: Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to inherit a vast fortune and then hire somebody to manage it for you? Romney has spent literally hours over his lifetime acquiring, growing, and maintaining his wealth.

Then I guess the greatest gift I'll give my children is nothing. That way, any accumulation of wealth they'll have will be strictly from their own accomplishments. Remind me to tell them they're welcome when I get home. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: Okay, got it. You have no citation that differentiates the stimulative effect of a tax cut based on who gets it.

+

tenpoundsofcheese: so he is saying the Bush tax cuts were good! Interesting to see that. Thanks!

= wtf?

Seriously? You're still thinking that he's going to make sense one day? Just give it up, man.

tenpoundsofcheese: Okay, got it. You have no citation that differentiates the stimulative effect of a tax cut based on who gets it. You are just guessing.

It's not a guess, it's what happened.

You imply that only people who spend tax break money is because the have to (you even used italics, wow!) then we should only give tax cuts to people who have no savings, including retirement savings. Since they may increase their savings or 401k withholding and that would be non-stimulative.

I never said or implied only. I'm sure a few rich people would take a tax cut and spend it just as a few poor people would take a tax cut and save it. But generally the opposite is true. You give a multimillionaire a couple extra thousand bucks in tax breaks where's the motivation to spend it? Why wouldn't they have already spent it from their millions before? Adding another .1% to their income doesn't tip the scales for them. Most of them wouldn't even notice it. You give a family making $50K a year an extra thousand dollars from tax cuts they certainly notice it and generally spend it because they have to just to get by. It's common sense.

This is why GWB's rebate tax cut, the lump sum check sent out, was not as stimulative for the economy (but better politically, because it was highly visible). People used that money to pay down debt or saved it. Obama's payroll tax cut was more stimulative for the economy (but not as good for him politically) because it was in small increments over the course of a year and therefore people spent it.

If you want to ignore the economists and evidence you're welcome to. Sticking your head in the sand is no skin off my back.

tenpoundsofcheese

I'll try to type slowly so it's easier for you to understand.

You see the Bush tax cuts on that chart? They return $0.29 on the dollar back into the economy.

Now look at the payroll tax holiday. It returns $1.29 on the dollar back into the economy.

The difference between those tax breaks is that a large portion of the former goes to very wealthy people, whereas the latter (reducing a regressive tax like the payroll tax) sends a much larger portion to people making under $109,000/year.

Do you follow me?