The Real Mitt Romney

[infinite monkey]

I think it's wheelbarrow. I think.

Read up for more information.

[BigV]

Mitt Romney is, by his own admission, "completely wrong".

[Adak]

What struck me about the debate was the lack of any plan (still) for the next four years, if the President is given a second term.

I wasn't expecting much, since it is the V.P., not Obama debating, but still. What's your plan for the next four years?

: : : Crickets : : :

You may not like the Romney plan, but at least they have one.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by adak

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


*****
What is this ^^^^^ ?

go back and read who I quoted as my reply to your snide remark about how uninformed I am about the economy, in any detail.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by adak

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!

by subtracting your useless stereotyping labels from your posts I clarify our discussion by keeping it on the subject at hand, Romney's proposed policies. What political church you genuflect in is irrelevant.

For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?

Not what good-for-nothing Congressionally approved deductions will Conservative-in-Chief-in-Waiting Romney eliminate to conservatively save God's Greatest Nation On Earth from the Liberal mess we've been saddled with?

Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

For example, what deductions will Romney eliminate to pay for his $5 trillion dollar tax cut?

...

Like that. What's the damn point. Just let's talk about the actual facts. You can cheerlead for "conservative" and boo "liberal", I'm just going to ignore it. Just like I said up there.. That IS doing better.

I haven't spent a lot of time with the details, because unless Romney/Ryan are actually elected, there is no hope for a cut in spending by the Fed's, and a tax cut for anybody.

Ryan's plan has been out for at least a year now. My understanding is that Romney's plan will be based on Ryan's plan, with a bit of tweaking from both Ryan and Romney, putting their heads together.

Romney's projected savings are just that - a projection, and I wouldn't be surprised if that projection was - like all economic projections - not perfect. The bottom line is, Romney's plan will cut spending in the federal gov't, cut taxes somewhat, and close some tax loopholes. His goal is to make it "neutral", so the income lost in one cut, will be matched by growth in the economy, and by closing a loophole.

I do not expect it will be exactly neutral, of course. He's smart, but he's not a Prophet.

Those are three things that (taken together), you WON'T get from Obama. And those are three good things for our economy, and our country.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by adak

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.

Just like Romney, say some shit, then walk it back.

You said "everyone's pockets", now you're admitting you really meant just half of everyone's pockets. What are you doing? Rounding up?

I noticed that Romney's in favor of reducing income tax rates by twenty percent, but supports the idea of letting the payroll tax reduction expire. In whose favor is the sum of these two proposals?

[BigV]

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.

So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?

Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.

Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there. Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

So, you're saying that money that moves fast helps restore a vibrant economy. You're saying it's less about the amount of money than it is about the speed with which it's moving around, am I right?

There must be money (value), in the economy, but it can't be just sitting in a bank, or stuck in a mattress somewhere.

Yes, Money has to MOVE, or the economy will stagnant.

Then, you denigrate the poor for having no money, "THEY'RE POOR!". Classy.

No denigration on the poor. Statement of fact in looking at the economy. By definition, the poor have very little money.

Let me ask you this. How can you say it's rich people who have a lot of money in the bank and who will have more money in the bank after this massive tax cut Romney's proposing is enacted are contributing to the economy? How are these people "job creators"? Because, poor people? No one spends money faster than poor people. They get it, and boom, it's gone. Sometimes it's gone so fucking fast it leaves before it gets there. Now THAT'S some high-velocity, vibrant-economy-building patriotic American economic action, right there.

You're right that many poor people spend money quickly, but it's a matter of quantity. The rich will move thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a day. The poor won't SEE ONE thousand dollars, in two months.

Those slacker bastards with their static bank balances, not moving, just sitting there getting piled higher and deeper... what are they doing for the economy? More specifically, what are their increased savings doing for the economy?

If the money was just sitting in a bank vault someplace, it would do us no good, but that's not what banks do - they invest a portion of every dollar they get:

*home loans, *commercial loans, *stocks, *commercial bonds, *municipal bonds, *real estate, *oil and gas drilling, and many more financial instruments.

So the money is moving, but as taxes increase (personal and business), that money begins to slow down, and dry up. People with money become more concerned with avoiding taxes, than with investing in the economy.

The rich aren't different from you or I in this regard.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by adak

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, I misspoke, I've corrected the text to more accurately reflect my thoughts.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by 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.

You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.

I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by BigV

You haven't answered it. You just call me a simpleton. But don't worry. You have good company. I just watched Paul Ryan fail to answer the same direct question. You can't answer it. He can't answer it. Romney hasn't answered it and won't answer it ("care to wager ten thousand dollars?"). There is no answer that fits his parameters.

I may be a simpleton, but I know my question is being evaded.

BigV, follow the link for the answer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssible/263541/

Edit: A second article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...

[BigV]

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.

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.

Translated:

Obama uncertainties bad.

Romney uncertainties good.

Got it. At least you didn't throw in a few "conservative" labels in there, but it's the thought that counts, right?

[BigV]

good night Adak, good night all.

let's do this again sometime!

[infinite monkey]

Yet they have no problem paying for Viagra.

I will never wrap my head around this logic.