[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

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


*****

What is this ^^^^^ ?

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

The money is not moving nearly as fast as it needs to, to help restore us to a vibrant economy again.

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 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.

You're right, ...

Well, finally!

The millies and billies to whom Romney is beholden.

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]

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.

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.

OMG. Can you hear yourself talk? This bogeyman of "uncertainty" that has its boot on the neck of businesses is bullshit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I need to stop this reply, because it's getting too long. I will answer this, in my next reply.