Yes.
Romney knows that by pandering to the ultra-ultra-ultra-wealthy he will win the election.
They make up the majority of voters in swing states like Ohio, Indiana and New Mexico.
Obama Says Romney Wants to Raise Taxes on Middle-Class to Give Wealthy a Break: Does He?
Chris D
2012/08/01 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
277 votes
|
|
39% | |||
|
441 votes
|
|
61% | |||
The spin keeps on spinning. Now, it's Obama saying Romney will raise taxes on the middle class to keep the tax breaks going for the super wealthy. Sounds fishy to me. Is Obama right, or is it true that Mitt Romney is planning to raise taxes on the middle class?
ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
AKRON, Ohio – President Obama today pounced on a new report that found Mitt Romney’s economic plan would raise taxes on the majority of Americans and give tax breaks to the super wealthy, telling supporters in the battleground state of Ohio that his opponent wants them to pay more so that “people like him” can get a tax cut.
Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/obama...
Top Opinion
-
Heisenberg 2012/08/01 21:23:17
The Father of Economics, Adam Smith, said so explicitly.
The first Income Tax in America was passed by Republican Abraham Lincoln, and it didn't affect lower-income people at all. They kept it on the books until the War Debt was paid for and discontinued it.
Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act, instead of blaming outsourcing.
That is some quality weed you're smoking.
"To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Help me understand how a 20% across the board decrease equates to a tax increase on the middle class. That in itself defies logic.
That economic modeling group admits to having to make quite a few assumptions. There is so much room for error when you start doing that. Take a look at what Scientific American has to say about these so called simulations:
http://www.scientificamerican...
The true bottom line is this. Spending HAS to decrease, programs have to be cut, corruption, waste and duplication needs to be eliminated and we Americans need to take a good, long look at what our government should provide and what it shouldn't. Radical spending cuts are necessary and there is going to be endless whining, pissing and moaning about this pet program and that 'essential service' that is being proposed to cut, but it will be best in the end as we relearn being responsible for ourselves rather than government reliance. That is, if we can ever get to the point of doing this instead of simply watching the asses on Capitol Hill put on another show.
Obama doesn't have it in his molecular and character make up. He's a marxist to the core. Romney? Well, he's not a marxist, but he's not the ideal choi...
Help me understand how a 20% across the board decrease equates to a tax increase on the middle class. That in itself defies logic.
That economic modeling group admits to having to make quite a few assumptions. There is so much room for error when you start doing that. Take a look at what Scientific American has to say about these so called simulations:
http://www.scientificamerican...
The true bottom line is this. Spending HAS to decrease, programs have to be cut, corruption, waste and duplication needs to be eliminated and we Americans need to take a good, long look at what our government should provide and what it shouldn't. Radical spending cuts are necessary and there is going to be endless whining, pissing and moaning about this pet program and that 'essential service' that is being proposed to cut, but it will be best in the end as we relearn being responsible for ourselves rather than government reliance. That is, if we can ever get to the point of doing this instead of simply watching the asses on Capitol Hill put on another show.
Obama doesn't have it in his molecular and character make up. He's a marxist to the core. Romney? Well, he's not a marxist, but he's not the ideal choice by any means. Would he do even half of what needs to be done to get America back on the right track? Hopefully, if we're lucky. Gary Johnson would do far more good, but the establishment control center has pretty much squashed any media coverage of both Johnson and Ron Paul. We have been 'given' Romney this time around with the guise and illusion that the people selected him. Poppy cock! But it's better than Obama.
That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott--he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions. "When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it," he says. "If you had to readjust the constant in Newton's law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn't be much of a law But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work."
.
These economic modeling programs are based on a significantly complex set of 'if/then' formulas. What if the if/then supposition is inaccurate? Obviously it depends on the individual assumption and what it affects, but one wrong assumption can throw off the entire result.
.
"To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.
The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news...
If you are uninsured, you are irresponsible and a drain on the nation's economy.
A friend of mine is out 50000 in lawyer fees fighting with an insurance company that refuses to pay a half-million dolllar medical bill even though the treatments are covered. Insurance companies can refuse anything they want, forcing you to take them to court. He has now filed bankruptcy, and the agency that monitors insurance companies did nothing. Health insurance is a money making business, not a hand out provider.
But since your so worried about every ones health, im curious how much money you have donated to your local hospital to help poor families that cant afford treatments that dont qualify for medicaid. Im guessing very little, since you seem to be more worried about the "burden" placed on you by sick people. Go donate to CMN right now, use your beer money, or dont buy that steak, eat peanut butter. Show me the selflessness
I agree that insurance companies are scum bags - you have no argument from me there. I'd prefer a total government single payer system, with no insurance companies. Insurance companies exist to increase the wealth of their shareholders. They do that by lowering costs and increasing premiums. I don't think we need to add profit to the cost of health care.
In answer to your question, I have not donated money to a hospital - that would be silly. I have paid my insurance premiums every month for the last thirty plus years for me and every member of my family. Fortunately, we haven't had to use the insurance for anything more than a sick visit or a tooth filling. But, should I, or anyone else in my family, become seriously sick, I will not pass any of that cost to you. You're welcome.
Under Bush, unemployment averaged about 5% (until 2007, when the Dems took the House and Senate) and about a 3.5 to 4.5% GDP growth rate. Bush's
highest deficit spending in any one year was about $413B. They say Obummer created more jobs than Bush. Well, I would hope so in an economy that has an 8.3% unemployment rate. Bush didn't HAVE TO create that many NEW jobs since the unemployment rate was 4.3 to 6%. He still did create jobs, however.
Go ahead. Tax and regulate businesses to death the way Obummer wants to. You're only 52. Can't retire yet. You'll be unemployed for years and wonder why businesses left the country or are not hiring. Joke's on you. Careful what you wish for.