If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The National Memo)   Mitt promises 12 million new jobs, eliminate the deficit, & lower taxes. Wall Street investor does the math: "At a 25 percent Federal tax rate on all the new income, the average new job would have to pay a mere $433,333 per year to fill the gap"   (nationalmemo.com) divider line 387
    More: Hero, Mitt Romney, deficits, tax rates  
•       •       •

4021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 6:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 07:00:43 PM
Where do we file our forms for one of these McRomneyJobs?
 
2012-10-04 07:03:03 PM

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]


Even though I know what that is, please don't post charts with no units or titles, it's just bad form. Also, i'm pretty sure it's upside down.
 
2012-10-04 07:03:57 PM
Well, to be fair Mitt Romney's plan is the Obama plan, minus Congressional Republicans who have openly stated their goal is to make Obama a one-term president obstructing legislation as if their lives depended upon it.
 
2012-10-04 07:09:21 PM
TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.
 
2012-10-04 07:09:37 PM
 
2012-10-04 07:11:45 PM

aircraftkiller: I don't post here anywhere near enough to pull my head out of my ass in regards to the commenting system


We have to pull our head out of our asses before we post? Since when?
 
2012-10-04 07:11:57 PM

meat0918: Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes...


Considering the fact that Romney himself exploited tax loopholes to pay a ridiculously low rate, you'd have to be a real sucker to believe that in the first place.
 
2012-10-04 07:14:00 PM
Damn decimals...
 
2012-10-04 07:18:33 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Diogenes: And of course, even if the math worked out, it's all predicated on things he cannot guarantee - like agreement from his own party and Congress as a whole.

Weren't you paying attention to Mitt last night? THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING FROM GASOLINE AND ELECTRICITY PRICES TO SINGLE-HANDEDLY CREATING JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH!

/at least while someone besides him is in office


Thisitty this this this.
 
2012-10-04 07:19:41 PM
108 comments in an no one seems to be able to propose any numbers that would make Romney's math make sense.

Come one folks, this is simple calculator stuff. Every person in my 7th grade pre-algebra class would be expected to handle such calculations.
 
2012-10-04 07:20:03 PM
So the Righties make fun of President Obama for "promising unicorns and rainbows," which he never did, and now Romney actually starts doing that and...what, HE really means it??
 
2012-10-04 07:20:07 PM

tortilla burger: The problem isn't that Romney lied in the debates; it's the voters that are too dumb to know when they're being lied to


This.

The only people anyone can convince at this point are "undecided" voters. Voters who are undecided at this point are idiots. It's a pretty solid strategy.
 
2012-10-04 07:21:12 PM

coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.


I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal
 
2012-10-04 07:21:40 PM

Greil: gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x394]

Even though I know what that is, please don't post charts with no units or titles, it's just bad form. Also, i'm pretty sure it's upside down.


sorry, it was a quick search and paste. And it is not upside down, it shows the amount of deficit. no a negative deficit under Clinton is correct.
 
2012-10-04 07:25:00 PM
Since $433,333 / year is only slightly above middle class, this should be doable.
 
2012-10-04 07:30:29 PM
Romney's performance was aimed squarely at the proud, low-information voter.
 
2012-10-04 07:30:43 PM
I wonder how much the Internet is going to mess with the normal channels of information diepersal this time around. It seems to be more and more every cycle. Lying on TV doesn't seem to work as well as it used to, and I think it's because the fact-checkers are everywhere now, and they can't be shut out of discussions.
 
2012-10-04 07:31:10 PM
Republican and Democrat representatives on PBS Newshour tonight
Talking about Romney numbers from the debate

Looks like the same game from last night:

1.) PBS news anchor was respectful and got owned by the Republican

2.) The Democrat tonight was shocked as the Republican lied and yell louder to make his lies more adamant

\grow a pair and call out the Republican bullshiat
 
2012-10-04 07:33:42 PM

gilgigamesh: PC LOAD LETTER: aircraftkiller: One of my FB friends put this bullshiat up as their cover photo:

I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom --Ronald Reagan

"If you having girl problems I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a biatch ain't one".

- William "Tecumseh" Sherman



"Now I ain't sayin' she a gold digger But she ain't messin' wit no broke ummm, no broke...now what won't she mess with? " ~William Wordsworth
 
2012-10-04 07:34:02 PM
Isn't 433K about entry level at Staples and Sports Authority?
 
2012-10-04 07:34:21 PM
Get 12 million off welfare should help
 
2012-10-04 07:34:37 PM

Solid Muldoon: I've yet to hear how a President can actually create jobs, from either candidate. Unless you are talking about the WPA, the Prez has very little to do with it. You can't do the WPA today because you can't send a bunch of guys into the desert to live in tents and sling shovels with no Union rules and no OSHA, even if they might be happy to have those jobs.

The only way to create jobs at home is to limit foreign products. And that will never happen. Not when our leaders are deep in bed with foreign companies and foreign banks and foreign kingdoms. And Walmart.

You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


The problem is that we ship overseas too. When we create a tariff on a country's product, they create one for a product we ship to them.
 
2012-10-04 07:34:46 PM

gremzo: ddam: meat0918: Corvus: nevirus: Yeah, but you did the math without including Romney's super-secret numbers that make it all revenue-neutral and add jobs and bring down the deficit.

Even if you don't do the math. If it's not going to be a tax cut because the deductions are in theory going to balance it out how is it going to help anyone?? We might have a simpler tax code but if what Romney is saying is true (which I think is not true, I think he plans to shift the tax burden to the middle and poor classes he is just using this as the pretext) then it won't save anyone one penny on their taxes.

And another thing.

Didn't Romney say he would lower the rate while closing loopholes, and then claim no one had ever done that before?

Isn't that exactly what Reagan did???

Reagan also had balance budgets and the national deficit was $0 when he left office.


umm... Really? because this chart says otherwise.


What's the source for that chart?
 
2012-10-04 07:34:59 PM

mrshowrules: coyo: TheMysteriousStranger:
And the GOP wants to lower corporate taxes anyways.


This has always puzzled me, since so many of the huge corporations pay nothing at all in taxes.

I don't think corporations should pay any tax.

/Liberal


I too as sympathetic to that point of view though I really see no way of that happening in a responsible way. The way to do it would be increase taxes on persons. Admittedly people already pay corporate taxes indirectly, they don't ever see it presented to them as a bill. But if those taxes got shifted to them, they will rebel. Also without tax write offs, businesses will be less likely to do things society wants them to do. So instead of bribing the corporations with taxes, we will have have the government do it itself or let it drop. Again it will cause a backlash. So we are stuck with corporate taxes. (Assuming the GOP does not eliminate them, fail to increase taxes on anyone to make up for it, and fark up the government's finances far more then they are already.)
 
2012-10-04 07:35:15 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7364520/79813420#c79813420" target="_blank">TheMysteriousStranger</a>:</b> <i>108 comments in an no one seems to be able to propose any numbers that would make Romney's math make sense.

Come one folks, this is simple calculator stuff. Every person in my 7th grade pre-algebra class would be expected to handle such calculations.</i>

<img src="http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/2010/01/images/BoobsElectronicCal culator.jpg">
 
2012-10-04 07:35:57 PM
www.investors.com

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
 
2012-10-04 07:36:01 PM
farking fark filters!

*shakes tiny fist*
 
2012-10-04 07:37:25 PM

Solid Muldoon: You want to create a million jobs? Ban foreign cars.


Says the person who has no freaking clue just how many Americans are employed in the manufacture of "foreign" cars. Hint: Pretty much every major foreign car manufacturer has multiple factories in the US.
 
2012-10-04 07:37:37 PM

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


Obviously it helps. But those eliminated welfare payment though they come up to an unimaginable shiatload of money are still a drop in the bucket compared the deficit.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:12 PM

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:20 PM

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


Not really. What you call "welfare" is chump change. Getting Agribusiness, Big Oil, and the Pentagon off welfare would save some REAL money - but certain people don't want to do that.
 
2012-10-04 07:38:20 PM
I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?
 
2012-10-04 07:39:46 PM

soy_bomb: /Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


That right there is an amazing amount of cherry-picked insanity. Like I'm not even mad, that's amazing

10/10

Except I bet you believe those charts aren't utterly useless....
 
2012-10-04 07:40:32 PM

violentsalvation: *click*

[i798.photobucket.com image 539x359]

*closes tab*


Mitt still isn't going to fark you.
 
2012-10-04 07:41:32 PM

MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.


Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?
 
2012-10-04 07:43:04 PM

meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.

I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.


Soy is one of the least honest posters here.
 
2012-10-04 07:43:26 PM

MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?


So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.
 
2012-10-04 07:45:02 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: from pay increases


More like special dividends to our investors....
 
2012-10-04 07:45:18 PM
All I heard Mitt say was that he was adding everyone on Sesame Street to the unemployment list. Everything else was blah blah blah
won't someone think of the puppets
 
2012-10-04 07:45:35 PM
I wouldn't want to make that much money. Can you imagine the taxes you'd have to pay. I could never afford them.

\am I doing it right?
 
2012-10-04 07:45:54 PM

colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help


So you're either advocating 'redistributing the wealth' to get 12 million people out of poverty, or you're advocating letting ~12 million people flood homeless shelters, or die in the streets, or filling our already-overcrowded prisons...
 
2012-10-04 07:46:01 PM

soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]

/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.


upper right corner shows the massive economic decline ending after Obama takes office.

and the deficits as % of GDP: those figures do not include expenses for the wars & reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, those were kept off of the official budget until Obama came into office ($120 billion a year). that graph also leaves out the $460 billion deficit (before war costs) in 2008.
 
2012-10-04 07:46:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?


Zero. Many analysts have shown what a piece of shiat the tax policy center analysis was. It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage. The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.
 
2012-10-04 07:47:50 PM

ghall3: soy_bomb: /Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.

That right there is an amazing amount of cherry-picked insanity. Like I'm not even mad, that's amazing

10/10

Except I bet you believe those charts aren't utterly useless....


No. It's a very real effect - but it only lasts for so long, and only happens on the front side of the bell curve. Reagan used it up. It's been gone for a generation - now, lower taxes just mean lower revenues, and will until normal and equitable taxation is restored.
 
2012-10-04 07:48:20 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc. Have Keynesians been lying or is this analyst a farking retard?

So give us some numbers. How much taxes are you proposing a creation of a new job will create. How much taxes are you proposing whatever increase in pay the already employed will get from pay increases? Do the math. Is it greater than a trillion dollars.


I point out an obvious flaw in this analyst's assumptions you take in without question, and you ask me to do the math. Hilarious. Do you or do you not believe Keynesian models?
 
2012-10-04 07:48:51 PM

Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.


Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".
 
2012-10-04 07:50:09 PM

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: MyRandomName: I was unaware the only tax revenue available was income tax. Could have sworn increased income increases purchases, increases corporate taxes, etc.

Can you answer this for me:

How much would the economy have to grow in order to make Romney's plan to reduce tax rates and reduce deductions revenue neutral?

Zero. Many analysts have shown what a piece of shiat the tax policy center analysis was.
It assumed zero GDP growth, discounted all changes to corporate deductions, ignored bond interest writeoffs which can account for half of their deficit. The report basically was an analysis of their retarded assumptions on what Romney bwver put forth. Will link in a few a 3 step example. The tax report was garbage. The fact they rescinded their original numbers from 86 to 41 billion aafter the aei analysis shows that.




/Do you honestly believe the economy will grow fast enough to make Romney's tax cuts, revenue neutral?
 
2012-10-04 07:50:47 PM
Why are facts so mean to Romney?

Facts are unfair!!
 
2012-10-04 07:50:47 PM

LordJiro: colon_pow: Get 12 million off welfare should help

So you're either advocating 'redistributing the wealth' to get 12 million people out of poverty, or you're advocating letting ~12 million people flood homeless shelters, or die in the streets, or filling our already-overcrowded prisons...


What could possibly go wrong? They'll just roll over and die, right?

Why is it that every other known civilization managed to solve the problem of poverty and class stagnation but we can't?
 
2012-10-04 07:51:06 PM

soy_bomb: Smackledorfer: meat0918: soy_bomb: [www.investors.com image 620x518]
/Once QE4 rolls out, $433,333 will be the poverty line.
I like how the first chart ends right before we start shedding 700,000 jobs per month.
Soy is one of the least honest posters here.

Because I don't believe that Obama destroyed Romney last night, I am a "least honest poster".


I don't think Obama won either.

But Romney was all style and no substance. At least you can agree with me on that.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report