Romney Tax Plan on Table. Debt Collapses Table.

His paper assumes an unrealistic income growth rate which would coincide with the tax cuts, yet doesn't explain how we get it. History shows us it's more likely that public spending cuts like the ones Romney is proposing would slow growth, not speed it.
 
Romney's tax plan puts more money in the pocket of small business's who then can hire more employees who will then not only have a job, but would be continually making more every payday because they too would be getting taxed less. Government ran social programs ponzi schemes feeding that are unnecessarily feeding the inflation rate into a frenzy, something of which similar programs in the private sector do not do. The problem with these programs in the private sector is that they do not have enough supply to meet the demand (the opposite of inflation). There are a number of reasons as to why this happens, government regulation, inconsistencies in government policy, the harshness of the arbitrations in medical law suits (on the governments behalf of course), etc... If you fix those things however, than I can guarantee that the supply and demand disparity will become less and will start heading towards an equilibrium (aka basic supply and demand economics).
 
so when basic supply and demand economics no longer work, go with trickle down? haha right

i clicked on the article you posted and followed it to another explaining the "math" behind romney's plan. it made non conservative assumptions of economic growth, once again based on trickle down economics, in order to make 20 percent tax cuts revenue neutral
 
Literally nothing you said in that post was correct but I'm going to pick on this one sentence in particular because it is literally 180 degrees wrong. If supply can't keep up with demand then basic economics would dictate that prices RISE, which is of course not the opposite of inflation (the word for that is deflation btw).
 
Horse and Sparrow and other supply-side economic theory has been historically proven to be economically devastating. It is about time we learned from our mistakes, no? This kind of archaic strategy is irrelevant in a modern global economy. There is no guarrantee that you can make, however unqualified you are to do so, that the stars will align properly and that all the conditions will be met to make this kind of system work....it hasn' t in the past and now in this complicated economic global web it is even less likely to....
Clearly this tax plan is a ruse to mislead voters. It is a complicated mess that promises things everybody wants to hear but it has no math to make it possible. This is simply a irresponsible and irrational plan to suspend-reality-in-order-to-get-me-elected.... pretty typical motus operendi for a vulture capitalist.
 
Do you even know what the word macroeconomics means? Because obviously you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
 
I dunno but by your post in that other thread about 35% capital gains taxes I would assume you dont have a clue as to what you are talking about either.
 
hey OP i'd like to see actual examples. not an article talking about examples...

thats the problem these days, people believe the news.
 
If you refer to page 1, I posted the study summary, complete with a link to the entire study on the CTP's website, complex math analogies, logic problems and statistics.

Please reminisce to me of the time when people followed their instincts and ignored the news. Also the problem is that news stations are generally held captive by their audience. One channel for instance, has about 2 hours of news per day and 22 hours of opinion shows.

Also, your demand for "actual examples" would not change your opinion. No matter what OP posts for you, it will inevitably fall into the category of "news", which you don't believe in anyway.

 
No, that isnt true, if it was, businesses would always operate with a minimal number of employees working a maximum number of hours. Which we do not see. Many jobs max out at about 40 hours, and at that point the business would rather hire more employees.

Hours and jobs move together, in the recession, we have seen the number of hours decrease in order to avoid cutting jobs in some situations, while many jobs have also been cut. In a rebound from the recession, thenumber of jobs would increase along with the number ofhours worked.
 
the government owns the news.

know what my opinion is? I hate both candidates, so my opinion may change.

what won't change is kids like you who think they know everything.

i didn't see the examples and now I do.
 
If I don't know what Im talking about then tell me why medical prices are sky rocketing? I mean isn't that the reason why health care reform is one of the main issues in the election? Macroeconomics would have it that as the technology in a certain industry advances, so does the cost of that technology. This is why Obamacare will not work, if you think that its possible for a government run health-care program to take care of every person in this country with the most up to date technology in an economically efficient manner than you're 100% mistaken. Like I said before, an example of this economic principle is in the private sector healthcare industry, it can only provide this technology to those who have the money to pay for it which is why they are financially forced to limit the supply, because if they didn't than they'd logically go bankrupt.
 
its only more difficult if you make it more difficult. All people want to do is bitch about Romney's tax plan, yet lets look at Obama. Tax the rich! Pay their fair share!! All these claims, but even if you take 100% of what they make for the year we could only run this country for 4 months. That doesn't add up.
 
The ACA is not "government-run healthcare"

You need to stop treating healthcare as if it should be an industry. It is essential for all people to have, no matter what.
 
Yeah, you have a legit point. But think about how much money that is for a second; the highest earning one percent of the country could sustain us for 4 months. Thats crazy. Anyway you do have a very good point. At the same time however, remember, they are being taxed per dollar exceeding a certain amount, so the idea that rich people will for some reason be non-existant is complete bs.

Also, Obama's tax plan is far less liberal than he claims. The reason I support Obama is because when he debates, he uses more facts than Romney. Also in the last debate, when Romney was asked if the math added up, instead of explaining how it added up, he explained that he was a business man, and as a business man he was able to do the math. Instead of explaining what exactly he would cut (PBS and C-Span take up %.014 of the budget by the way), he basically said trust me.
 
I had to get out of bed to quote this since it wasnt working on my phone.

Ya Obama really spit some real numbers out there and some real ideas. I havent heard Obama tell us what he is going to do different in the next 4 years to try and fix shit. I have heard the same bullshit he was spittin last time and well we are where we are now..... question...do you even watch the debates?
 
watch ever one. Personally the vice presidential ones are much better. Personally I thought Obama was not that bad in the first debate, but then I remembered that content really does not matter. Actually, Obama has shrunk the deficit. Romney often confuses deficit with debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top