[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

You just are not informed yet on how our economy works, in any detail.

If that's what you think, may I reply by way of quoting someone I whose opinion you appear to trust:

Originally Posted by Adak

Ha, pretty funny!

*****

Originally Posted by Adak

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

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...

Originally Posted by Adak

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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'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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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?

Cite.

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh hell no!

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.

Riiiiight. And you want the people of Nebraska to drink oil.

Originally Posted by Adak

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

Mad indeed.