The way I understood him to be explaining it in the debate:

1. Reduce ‘individual’ tax rate
...a. Individuals in households pay less
...b. Individuals who own small businesses pay less
2. Tax revenues decreased at this point
3. Small businesses stimulated at this point
...a. Resulting in tax revenues going back up
4. Also, deductions eliminated for households
...a. Households end up paying the same amount

I have a different idea most for what is Conservative or Liberal. I'm actually for some liberal goals, if they are implemented in a practical manner. I support Gay Unions for instance, with full legal rights to marriage. Not because it's the ideal, but because it's as close to the ideal, as we can practically get.

D or R doesn't bother me. Lately the D's have mostly been out of their rabid ass minds, however. :D

Our fiscal policies MUST be conservative, however. We just CAN'T keep spending a Trillion dollars we do not have, and have to borrow it from somewhere else, and then pay interest on it.

If that debt interest should ever increase by just a couple percent, we'd be in SERIOUS difficulty!!

What's the saying? If I owe the bank $1000, that's my problem. If I owe the bank $1,000,000, that's the bank's problem.


Who's problem is it if the US owes China $8 Trillion?

The fiscal details in Romneys Administration, will be undoubtedly written in large part (probably the larger part), by his Vice President, Paul Ryan.

As the head of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has an excellent and detailed knowledge of what changes should be made, and the order they should be made in.

That's one reason I'm so pleased with this pairing, because the President may want to work on the economy and fiscal matters, but no President has the time to dig into all the details. Here, Ryan already KNOWS a lot of the details, and has plenty of time to research the matter.

A perfect choice in a running mate, imo. :D

@@: I thought it was obvious that the poor needed a helping hand. But no, they don't need a monthly check for decades, if they're able-bodied.

Ha, pretty funny! :D

The Conservative way to a better economy (which is the only way it works, btw), is:

1) Lower taxes: puts more money into everyone's pocket, and that gets money MOVING around the private sector, (and into gov't as well, by various means). We have money now, but it's not moving, because the gov't has WAY too many strings attached to it.

Remember that a GOOD economy is not how much money there is, but how FAST that money is moving through the economy. Stagnation is something you do NOT want in your economy!

2) Excessive deductions in the tax code, are a hindrance, basically picking and choosing which payer (personal or business) is a winner, and which will be the losers, because not everyone can use those deductions.

You don't probably want a perfectly FLAT tax code, but we need a flatter tax code.

Businesses have to forecast ahead, and when deductions and items like health care costs changing, pop up in your forecasts, it puts doubts into your forecasts. Business people do not expand their business when they have serious doubts:

"Will health care expenses increase by 20% this year, because of Obama care? Can we get a waiver?" maybe, and maybe.

"Will we be able to get <D> deduction this year, and if so, how big will it be for us? maybe and who knows the amount.

Not good.

Because as stated, the tax base has increased, and incomes increase as money MOVES faster in the economy. Gov't coffers fill up quicker, also, from many tax sources, not just income tax.
You just are not informed yet on how our economy works, in any detail.

Most everyone thinks that more money in the economy will improve our economy - so if the gov't adds 20% more money to it, that should improve our economy by about 20%.

Which is completely wrong. Adding money to the economy gives it a stimulus, but until money is MOVING, it is NOT GOING TO HELP THE ECONOMY.

We've had a LOT of new jobs created, but do they tell you that tens of thousands of those new jobs are GOVERNMENT jobs?

Oh hell no! :mad:

That is NOT growth in the private sector, and THAT is what we need. And you won't get that from Obama - he's never worked in the private sector, and doesn't like it. He wants more government jobs and more government controls.

Look at how quickly he axed the Keystone Pipeline project. He'd have us eat grass, rather than approve a major business enterprise that would have created hundreds of new high paying jobs.

You have to respect Obama for this - the dang guy is consistent. Most smart people will turn away from something that doesn't work, and try something else. Not Obama - he'll stick with it and beat you into poverty with it. He's not "liberal", he's a Socialist or Stateist (if you prefer).

During his campaign in '08, Obama said that "under my cap and trade system", Coal fired electrical plants would be "bankrupted", because of the taxes (fee's and fines), he would make them pay.

NOT ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT HOW WE REPLACE THE POWER HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY!! And NOT ONE reporter asked him A DAMN QUESTION about that obvious problem!! And of course, nothing about the doomed shareholders of those companies!!

He said he would make make electric rates "skyrocket" - well, that's being honest at least. Frankly, I'd rather he lied, and made the electric rates come down, however.

Just heard a prediction, that under the latest proposed cap and trade system, diesel fuel for my truck, will be in the $25-$27 dollar range PER GALLON! I nearly feinted, and that's no lie.

:mad::mad::mad:

As I just said in another post a little earlier today... :facepalm:

In a few hours more, Paul Ryan will try and teach Joe Biden, how to count the letters in the word "Jobs".

That is so funny, hearing Biden in a speech, count it out:
"it's all about the three letter word 'Jobs'"
"J-O-B-S, Jobs". <laughter among the crowd>

Just to be fair, we must include the famous Dan Quayle remark:
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

Why dear God, must we endure these nincompoops as our leaders??

Other DQ funnies:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/q...aylequotes.htm

You can't expect to get a lot of details about Romney's plans just yet, because first the democrats must:

1) call every one of the proposed tax cuts, stupid, in 20 locations, in time for the 6 o'clock news cycle.

Let's see: Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid - sure!

2) find 50 people whose life has imploded, because of a planned reduction in their income tax.

3) trot out 3 crying widows and or orphans, who have lost their husbands or fathers, because of Romney's reduction in their income tax.

4) interview 10 business managers who are now moving their plants to China, because they will pay lower business taxes, under the Romney tax plans.

It's so pathetic you'd cry, but it's so funny at the same time, that you can't. :D

If Joe Biden ever became President, wouldn't that just take the humor out of it, in a heartbeat?

The only thing that gives me hope is Romney said Ryan's plan was not his plan, and he's running for President, not Ryan.

I don't watch much network TV so haven't seen a lot of the campaign ads, but having spent a week on Cape Cod I was amazed at the number of ads. That area would of course have a ton of ads for the Warren/Brown race, and some for New Hampshire and Rhode Island races.

What shocked me is the deluge of Super-PAC ads (almost all negative) on all the federal, and even some of the state races. No shit, they'd break for a commercial and you'd see four or five political ads for every potato chip or Pepsi ad.

I can see the broadcast industry shills and lobbyists trying to shorten the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with that kind of revenue stream. :lol:

If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:
*****
First of all, liberal vs conservative *everything* coming from you is just additional noise. I'm subtracting it from what you say. You're elusive and changeable on those terms and frankly, they contribute nothing to the understanding of the economy, or specific plans like the one under discussion here. Moving on...

No, you're wrong. Lower tax revenues does *not* mean that more money is put into everyone's pocket. Somebody... his name escapes me at the moment, anyhow, he said that some 47% of people pay no income taxes at all. How can you say that lowering income tax rates will increase the amount of money in these people's pockets??!! It won't. Now, Romney is talking about income tax rates, that's all he's spoken about. Not a word about payroll taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, medicare, etc. Nothing. Only income taxes, he's said he will reduce the rates by 20%. So, by his words and your "logic", only 53% of the people will be getting more money. Not the poorest, just those who pay income taxes.

Now, this half of the population, roughly speaking, let's follow your reasoning for a little bit, let's say they do have more money in their pocket. Money is already moving around our economy, in the private sector and in the public sector. I must also point out that those two sectors connect and overlap. They are interdependent. Money is already moving. How much more money there is in the pockets of half the population is no indicator of how the money's moving. Just the bulk of the money.

I agree that a dollar has to be in motion for it to have any intrinsic value. But nothing I've heard from Romney says anything about increasing that motion. Much of the recovery to date has been on two main fronts: an increase in employment and production and consumption, *and* a reduction in personal debt. There would be more growth, but as a country, we're living somewhat BELOW our means and using the difference to reduce our indebtedness. This makes things look worse if you consider only growth, but we've had growth PLUS less debt. This is good. But, then again, we're talking about how his tax plan does stuff, not about the money supply.

You're right, not everyone can use all the deductions. Calling it picking winners and losers is oversimplifying to the point of uselessness. Our tax code is labyrinthine, Byzantine, I doubt no one knows it all. And I believe there are a great many ways it could be simplified. You're also right--someone's ox will be gored and they're likely to be unhappy about it. If those someones are people *coughcorporationsarepeoplecough* of great means, they're *highly* likely to have their ox spared. The millies and billies to whom Romney is beholden.
Really? You think we need a flatter tax code? We have what? Six rates? What number do you think is a better, flatter number? Besides Romney's said nothing at all about making the tax code flatter. Just shorter (by 20% in each bracket) and thinner (by eliminating some number of deductions, TBA). It's this TBA that bothers me and every other thinking person, though not you or your fellow magic hand wavers.

Back to what Romney *said*: I'll reduce the rates by 20%, I "absolutely" will not increase taxes, and to avoid increasing our deficit by reducing our revenues I will 'pay' for the tax rate reductions and the corresponding reduction in revenues by eliminating some deductions. WHAT DEDUCTIONS CAN BE ELIMINATED THAT WILL FILL THE HOLE LEFT BY THE RATE REDUCTIONS? You haven't answered this. Romney hasn't answered this. NO ONE has answered this, because there isn't an answer. EVERYONE, except the couple of bloggers who "refute" President Obama's accusation of Romney's lies, says it can't be done. It is YOU who know squat about the economy Adak.
OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit. Furthermore, your guy, Romney, remember him? If you and he are all freaked out about "will we be able to get <D> deduction this year and if so how big will it be and who knows the amount"... then you should NOT vote for Romney, because This. Is. Exactly. What. He. Has. Promised. REPEATEDLY. "There will be eliminations of deductions, but we're not saying *which* ones." You want uncertainty of deductions? Romney's your guy.
Dude. "as stated" is all you have to support your claim that the tax base will be increased. You still haven't said how. Go back up into YOUR own post and show me where you outline how it will be increased. Flint, bless his heart, *did* actually say it when he jumped from point 2) to point 3), though he gave no justification for it (don't worry, I'm gonna give him a chance to 'splain it to me). You haven't even brought it up until now. You ... just... state it, like a virgin birth--TADA! Come on, tell me how the policy described by Romney will increase the tax base. I'm still waiting.
Cite.

Riiiiight. And you want the people of Nebraska to drink oil.
Look. My bullshit meter just exploded. It is impossible for me to have a reasoned, intelligent dialog with anyone who wastes braincells connecting Obama and Socialism. We have more of a chance to share ideas with each other if you called him a nigger because of his skin color or a Muslim because of his middle name. It would be just as offensive, just as smart, just as useful, but would at least have the intellectual honesty of a racist bigot. Calling him a Socialist is merely offensive, stupid, useless and wrong.
thought I was done, I was wrong. Show us this prediction. I stand ready to point and laugh. Personally, I am not buying your feint.
Mad indeed.

V, I admire your heroic efforts at dialog, but eventually ...

Let me get this straight. Your complaint, at least the complaint coming from Romney's campaign and their surrogates about Obama's lack of qualifications to guide the economy is his lack of experience in the private sector--never run as much as a lemonade stand, is how the bumpersticker reads, is it not? I think YOU may have repeated it. Got it.

Ryan is your ace in the hole for the fiscal details for an imagined Romney Administration, right? The guy who'll be at the Executive helm for the economy. He's good because he's been the head of the House Budget Committee. Got it.

So... just curious... what is Ryan's private sector experience? Any lemonade stands? Well, no. He did drive the Weinermobile though. cite.

Private sector experience:

His substantive work: Public service. Government worker to you.

Now I have to say, I don't believe this disqualifies him for executive office. I don't think this is a useful measure, it's too incomplete. But you can't say Obama's unqualified because of the dearth of his private sector experience and then tout Ryan who has far less private sector experience and be expected to be taken seriously. Your double standard is unconvincing. You might be happy with him because you like him and be unhappy with Obama because you dislike him--fine. But your reasoning is unsound.

How would you deal with federal benefits that accrue to spouses? Is it a Union, or is it Marriage?

What is this ^^^^^ ?

That a lot of mumbo-jumbo, right there ^^^^. You make no argument or assertion, of fact or opinion, of the subject at hand.

You have to do better than this!

I thought you would understand that nothing will put more money into the pockets of people who are paying no taxes, when you cut taxes.! For pete's sake here.

If you want to stimulate business AND personal spending, do you think the poor will do that with a cut in income taxes?

The poor don't own businesses, and they don't pay income taxes, and they do a very small amount of personal spending, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MONEY - THEY'RE POOR!
The money is not moving nearly as fast as it needs to, to help restore us to a vibrant economy again.You're mixing national debt, with personal debt (which has gone down sharply). Romney's message is trying to be clear and plain to people who don't know about the need for the speed of money, and how it adds to our economy. Most people I talk to know NOTHING about that.
Well, finally! ;)

You need to look at Obama's cabinet and Czars he's appointed. Goldman Sachs is HEAVILY represented, and that is the very heart of the *millies and billies*, you decry.[/quote]

It can be done, but not in the simpleton manner you're looking at it, and it's very likely it won't be done all in the first 2 years of his term.
If you ever sit in on a board meeting where long term planning is being discussed, you'll know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
Yes, there will be added doubts about the future in a Romney administration, throughout the business ranks. It won't all be peaches and cream, but because Romney is undeniably more pro business than Obama ever dreamed of being, there will also be a sigh of relief, since the President knows business, and how to help businesses in trouble, and will help enact policies, and codes, that are better for them.This is the historical trend, since Grover Cleveland. Not just in the country, but in every state, in every city, in every county. If other factors remain the same, when you cut taxes moderately (and cut your gov't spending as well), you increase your tax revenues. Worked for Cleveland, Kennedy, (remember "A rising tide lifts all boats" speech?). Reagan. Didn't work when FDR, Carter, Obama, etc., did NOT cut taxes, during their economic downturns.

Along with the moderate cut in taxes, the taxing authority needs to cut their spending, as well.

It's the Conservative Yellow Brick Road, and it has worked many, many times. When it's not followed, the result will be economic downturn and hardship, unless the most favorable conditions are not present to bolster up this Liberal mistake in fiscal policy.
I need to stop this reply, because it's getting too long. I will answer this, in my next reply.

This is taken from Steven Moore's excellent writing. Moore is a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal. Full info is here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

with way more graphs and data than I can fit in here. Also, Moore has a new book out which goes into even more detail.

As J.F.Kennedy said when he cut taxes:
This is from his "A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats" speech, iirc.

It IS unintuitive that it would work this way, but we know that it DOES work this way, so try to accept it.

Should we tax our rich more?

Fact: What country leans on upper income households, the most?

Some socialist country? Nope. USA does!
That's why this "Fairness" crap from Obama, drives me right up the wall. (and no, I'm NOT in the top brackets myself).

The above chart, and much more besides, is all here:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

as well as several other places on the web.

Can I guarantee that cutting taxes and trimming federal spending will grow our tax base - no. But it ALWAYS has, in the past. I see no reason to believe it won't do it again.

The article I linked to is excellent, and Moore's book is even better.

.

Nope, cut spending, pay debt, then reduce taxes to match revenues to expenses, otherwise interest will eat you up. Ask anyone that's gotten into the credit card hole.