Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (1 Viewer)

[humpback]

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

More nonsense, or are you really this clueless about our tax code?

Are you really that clueless about asset investing versus consumer spending and the lower cap gains rate?

I know all about it, thanks. Are you saying you make your money from asset investing? Or, that we have a regressive effective tax code?

 

[datonn]

Revenue-neutral in the macro-sense and short-term...but he's banking on it being a stimulator related to job growth with small businesses, since 54% (?) of small business owners would actually see a reduction in their rate, since they are taxes at an individual rate vs. a corporate rate. I think that was his point.

He's also banking on people forgetting about his plan to cut loopholes. Also, he's never said he won't create new loopholes.

Oh yeah, I'm with you. And I think the size of our military needs to be reduced or AT-MINIMUM have lots of dollars re-allocated in different ways that will give us more bang for our buck. But increasing our military spending another $2 trillion?! Assinine, if you ask me.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltysonCutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

maybe... But if you have a million text files it really starts adding up...Until someone gets into office and starts going "well, let's actually take a look at the things that take up .012% of the budget, because .012% of the budget is actually quite a lot of money", nothing is ever going to change...If the federal budget is $1,000,000,000,000, then .012% of it is $120,000,000...The most important thing our country can do right now is lower spending everywhere we possibly can so we can pay the debt off so we can then use the money we currently spend on interest payments to fund what we want, but don't need... We need to run this country like a family who is on the brink of bankruptcy but needing/trying to recover would run their household... And when you're in that situation cutting out your coffee at starbucks in the morning might not seem like a lot, but stuff like that adds up and is how people get into financial trouble...

 

[NCCommish]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

This is the same discredited theory that led to 1929 and 2008.

The velocity of money slowing down is what led to both 1929 and 2008.With more than 15% of the working capable people in the country not earning income, and paying income tax, increasing the velocity of money has a great opportunity of producing real growth and increasing tax revenues.

However, when very few working capable people in the country are not working, increasing the velocity of money has very little chance at producing growth and tax revenues.

Ahh, so trickle down couldn't work in 2008 because things were already falling apart, but now that they have fallen apart it'll work brilliantly!

Trickle down has never worked.But it's a moot point given Romney is not proposing trickle down economics. Taxing the rich more and the middle class less is NOT trickle down economics. It's the opposite of it, despite how many of you suggest that it's the same.

On Feb 22nd, 2012 Romney said:"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." So was he lying then or now?

 

[Politician Spock]

The "all or none" argument again.

What am I missing?--Romney is proposing tax cuts that result in $5T in lost revenue to the government.--Romney says that 100% for sure his tax cut will be revenue neutral.--He says he's going to make it revenue neutral by 'closing loopholes.'--There aren't $5T in loopholes to close. And there's no way in hell he'll be able to close all of them in any event.The 'all or nothing' is whether what Romney says he'll do is possible. And it's not. And he knows it.

I don't believe for a moment that it will be revenue neutral... at least anymore than I believed Obama when he said he would cut the deficit in half.But even if it is a net $2 to $3 trillion less in income tax revenue after congress determines what deductions are to be eliminated, it's far better for the 15% of the working capable population that aren't working than what Obama is doing for them. US corporations are sitting on $5.1 Trillion in cash. They've proven they have no intent on hiring those out of work Americans with it. Neither Obama nor Romney is going to change that. The corporations are thinking globally now, and their US presences are saturated. China's GDP will exceed the US likely by 2015 and only keep going from there. And with 1.3 billion people in China compared to our 0.3 billion people, that $5.1 trillion in corporate cash has far more interest in China than it does in the US. If the out of work Americans are going to be put back to work, it's going to be small businesses that do it. I've seen nothing from Obama that will fuel that. I'm not a fan of Romney at all, but at least he's saying something that would actually help small businesses hire the out of work.

 

[jonessed]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

 

[17seconds]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

This is the same discredited theory that led to 1929 and 2008.

The velocity of money slowing down is what led to both 1929 and 2008.With more than 15% of the working capable people in the country not earning income, and paying income tax, increasing the velocity of money has a great opportunity of producing real growth and increasing tax revenues.

However, when very few working capable people in the country are not working, increasing the velocity of money has very little chance at producing growth and tax revenues.

Ahh, so trickle down couldn't work in 2008 because things were already falling apart, but now that they have fallen apart it'll work brilliantly!

Trickle down has never worked.But it's a moot point given Romney is not proposing trickle down economics. Taxing the rich more and the middle class less is NOT trickle down economics. It's the opposite of it, despite how many of you suggest that it's the same.

Mind blown. This is a brand new idea from Romney on 10/3/2012 and you are running with it like it's been the plan all along.

 

[lod01]

maybe... But if you have a million text files it really starts adding up...

Until someone gets into office and starts going "well, let's actually take a look at the things that take up .012% of the budget, because .012% of the budget is actually quite a lot of money", nothing is ever going to change...

If the federal budget is $1,000,000,000,000, then .012% of it is $120,000,000...

The most important thing our country can do right now is lower spending everywhere we possibly can so we can pay the debt off so we can then use the money we currently spend on interest payments to fund what we want, but don't need... We need to run this country like a family who is on the brink of bankruptcy but needing/trying to recover would run their household... And when you're in that situation cutting out your coffee at starbucks in the morning might not seem like a lot, but stuff like that adds up and is how people get into financial trouble...

That's some funny ####. You don't actually think that is even remotely possible without completely decimating the global economy, do you?

 

[Politician Spock]

Hasn't he always said that it will be offset by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions? The only issue is the details on which ones.

No the issue is there aren't enough loopholes in the tax code to allow him to give a 20% across the board cut, raise defense spending, and not cut any loopholes for the middle class. His math doesn't work.

So if the number of loopholes doesn't offset the entire $5 trillion created by the rate cut, then it's still a $5 trillion tax cut? The math is "all or none"?What if congress agrees on $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminnations? Wouldn't it then be just a $2.5 trillion tax cut?

And what if that $5 trillion rate cut hits the small business owner, while the $2.5 trillion in loophole eliminations hits the corporations? Wouldn't that put $5 trilloin in the middle class and take $2.5 Trillion out of the corporations who are sitting on over $4 trillion in their cash accounts instead of hiring people?

And what if that $5 trillion in the middle class spurs real growth? Wouldn't that increase tax revenues... perhaps even to the point where the remaining $2.5 trillion tax cut is wiped out as well?

This is what the Obama supporters don't seem to comprehend.

They don't want to understand it. It's the evil Romney guy's idea. If it was Obama's idea, it would be awesome!

This is the same discredited theory that led to 1929 and 2008.

The velocity of money slowing down is what led to both 1929 and 2008.With more than 15% of the working capable people in the country not earning income, and paying income tax, increasing the velocity of money has a great opportunity of producing real growth and increasing tax revenues.

However, when very few working capable people in the country are not working, increasing the velocity of money has very little chance at producing growth and tax revenues.

Ahh, so trickle down couldn't work in 2008 because things were already falling apart, but now that they have fallen apart it'll work brilliantly!

Trickle down has never worked.But it's a moot point given Romney is not proposing trickle down economics. Taxing the rich more and the middle class less is NOT trickle down economics. It's the opposite of it, despite how many of you suggest that it's the same.

On Feb 22nd, 2012 Romney said:"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." So was he lying then or now?

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

 

[jomar]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

 

[Politician Spock]

You guys who are buying this 'close the loopholes' nonsense crack me up. Reminds of Arnold when he became Governor and said he was going to 'open the books'. Some people will believe anything.

Reminds me of when Obama said he was going to make government "more transparent", cut the deficit in half, etc, etc... Some people will believe anything.

Government transparencyObama was already President when he would cut the deficit in half. Some extraordinary things were happening at that time to prevent it, don't you think?

Arnold has apologists too.

 

[dparker713]

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

More nonsense, or are you really this clueless about our tax code?

Are you really that clueless about asset investing versus consumer spending and the lower cap gains rate?

I know all about it, thanks. Are you saying you make your money from asset investing? Or, that we have a regressive effective tax code?

The inflection point of the SS tax cap creates a regressive rate for a segment of the tax curve. And above a certain threshold the more you earn, the more you can save and take advantage of the lower cap gains rate and other tax advantaged positions.

 

[larry_boy_44]

maybe... But if you have a million text files it really starts adding up...

Until someone gets into office and starts going "well, let's actually take a look at the things that take up .012% of the budget, because .012% of the budget is actually quite a lot of money", nothing is ever going to change...

If the federal budget is $1,000,000,000,000, then .012% of it is $120,000,000...

The most important thing our country can do right now is lower spending everywhere we possibly can so we can pay the debt off so we can then use the money we currently spend on interest payments to fund what we want, but don't need... We need to run this country like a family who is on the brink of bankruptcy but needing/trying to recover would run their household... And when you're in that situation cutting out your coffee at starbucks in the morning might not seem like a lot, but stuff like that adds up and is how people get into financial trouble...

That's some funny ####. You don't actually think that is even remotely possible without completely decimating the global economy, do you?

Do you know what % of our government's annual spending is on interest?Its unsustainable... If the global economy can't afford not to have 20% of America's spending on interest, than the world economy is beyond repair and we should just live with the consequences of our ridiculousness now instead of making it worse by pushing it to the future...

 

[Slapdash]

With that in mind, I thought that either Obama or the moderator let a *lot* of stuff slide related to Romney's claims and positions. I didn't like that Obama kept going back to the well with "it's simple math..." when discussing Romney's tax cuts and increased military spending...since Romney is obviously betting the farm on said activities growing revenue via less unemployment and rising incomes. I think Romney's plan is flawed, but a high school student taking an economics class can at least tell you where Romney's getting his "tax-neutral" ideas.

You're going to have a hard time finding a serious economist to support what he is betting the farm on here. If high school econ students are learning that tax cuts are revenue neutral then we need to get them competent teachers.

 

[humpback]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

I believe he's saying that the loopholes that are going to be closed are targeted more towards the big corporations and wealthy individuals than the small businesses and middle class, effectively raising taxes at the higher end and lowering them in the middle.

 

[jonessed]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

The corporate rate changes should lead to more competition and innovation, the business breaks should lead directly to more jobs. Actually, even if all he can do is simplify the code for small businesses and not actually lower the burden then I'm all for that.How am I supposed to know how any of this will help or hinder you? I have no idea who you are or what you do.

 

[Fennis]

 

[NCCommish]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

 

[NYG Endzone]

The "all or none" argument again.

What am I missing?--Romney is proposing tax cuts that result in $5T in lost revenue to the government.

--Romney says that 100% for sure his tax cut will be revenue neutral.

--He says he's going to make it revenue neutral by 'closing loopholes.'

--There aren't $5T in loopholes to close. And there's no way in hell he'll be able to close all of them in any event.

The 'all or nothing' is whether what Romney says he'll do is possible. And it's not. And he knows it.

I don't believe for a moment that it will be revenue neutral... at least anymore than I believed Obama when he said he would cut the deficit in half.But even if it is a net $2 to $3 trillion less in income tax revenue after congress determines what deductions are to be eliminated, it's far better for the 15% of the working capable population that aren't working than what Obama is doing for them.

US corporations are sitting on $5.1 Trillion in cash. They've proven they have no intent on hiring those out of work Americans with it. Neither Obama nor Romney is going to change that. The corporations are thinking globally now, and their US presences are saturated. China's GDP will exceed the US likely by 2015 and only keep going from there. And with 1.3 billion people in China compared to our 0.3 billion people, that $5.1 trillion in corporate cash has far more interest in China than it does in the US.

If the out of work Americans are going to be put back to work, it's going to be small businesses that do it. I've seen nothing from Obama that will fuel that. I'm not a fan of Romney at all, but at least he's saying something that would actually help small businesses hire the out of work.

How much debt do they have?

 

[jomar]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

I believe he's saying that the loopholes that are going to be closed are targeted more towards the big corporations and wealthy individuals than the small businesses and middle class, effectively raising taxes at the higher end and lowering them in the middle.

has he actually said that? I don't remember him saying exactly what loopholes he'd close or deductions he'd eliminate

 

[adonis]

I find it odd that Obama entered the stage with a figurative gun loaded with all sorts of ammunition that could be used on domestic issues:

47% comments

Bain talking points

Off-shore accounts

Tax Returns

Flip-flopping on record

etc.

Yet he left the stage with virtually few bullets fired. Gotta leave it all out there man...leave it all on the field.

 

[adonis]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

I believe he's saying that the loopholes that are going to be closed are targeted more towards the big corporations and wealthy individuals than the small businesses and middle class, effectively raising taxes at the higher end and lowering them in the middle.

has he actually said that? I don't remember him saying exactly what loopholes he'd close or deductions he'd eliminate

Campaign said something about limiting total deductions to about 17k or something, i think it came out yesterday and Romney sorta acknowledged it, but wasn't a focus.

 

[jomar]

The corporate rate changes should lead to more competition and innovation, the business breaks should lead directly to more jobs. Actually, even if all he can do is simplify the code for small businesses and not actually lower the burden then I'm all for that.

how do business tax breaks lead directly to more jobs? my company won't hire more people just because we pay less, it just means we made a little more money after taxes

 

[humpback]

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

More nonsense, or are you really this clueless about our tax code?

Are you really that clueless about asset investing versus consumer spending and the lower cap gains rate?

I know all about it, thanks. Are you saying you make your money from asset investing? Or, that we have a regressive effective tax code?

The inflection point of the SS tax cap creates a regressive rate for a segment of the tax curve. And above a certain threshold the more you earn, the more you can save and take advantage of the lower cap gains rate and other tax advantaged positions.

There are people who make a lot of money and pay a lower effective rate than people who make much less. However, that is the exception, not the norm. Overall, we have a progressive effective tax code, even when including SS, lower cap gain, etc.

 

[Politician Spock]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

Get your head out of the sand. The tax rate on earned income has never hurt the 1%. The higher it is the more it keeps the 99% out of the 1%. It keeps 1% in a class that the working class can never work their way in to. The top 1% care about the capital gains rate, their deductions, and their loopholes. The only people that care what the 1% pay on earned income are the 99%. The 1% couldn't care less what they pay on their earned income.

 

[NCCommish]

I find it odd that Obama entered the stage with a figurative gun loaded with all sorts of ammunition that could be used on domestic issues:47% commentsBain talking pointsOff-shore accountsTax ReturnsFlip-flopping on recordetc.Yet he left the stage with virtually few bullets fired. Gotta leave it all out there man...leave it all on the field.

When Romney came out and threw everything he said in the last 18 months in the trash they were caught flat footed. Plus this president just isn't great in debates. But you can see today how it's going to play out. The call outs have already started and they are going to build. Romney left himself vulnerable in many ways and it is going to get exploited.

 

[Politician Spock]

The "all or none" argument again.

What am I missing?--Romney is proposing tax cuts that result in $5T in lost revenue to the government.

--Romney says that 100% for sure his tax cut will be revenue neutral.

--He says he's going to make it revenue neutral by 'closing loopholes.'

--There aren't $5T in loopholes to close. And there's no way in hell he'll be able to close all of them in any event.

The 'all or nothing' is whether what Romney says he'll do is possible. And it's not. And he knows it.

I don't believe for a moment that it will be revenue neutral... at least anymore than I believed Obama when he said he would cut the deficit in half.But even if it is a net $2 to $3 trillion less in income tax revenue after congress determines what deductions are to be eliminated, it's far better for the 15% of the working capable population that aren't working than what Obama is doing for them.

US corporations are sitting on $5.1 Trillion in cash. They've proven they have no intent on hiring those out of work Americans with it. Neither Obama nor Romney is going to change that. The corporations are thinking globally now, and their US presences are saturated. China's GDP will exceed the US likely by 2015 and only keep going from there. And with 1.3 billion people in China compared to our 0.3 billion people, that $5.1 trillion in corporate cash has far more interest in China than it does in the US.

If the out of work Americans are going to be put back to work, it's going to be small businesses that do it. I've seen nothing from Obama that will fuel that. I'm not a fan of Romney at all, but at least he's saying something that would actually help small businesses hire the out of work.

How much debt do they have?

Less than the assets they have.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I find it odd that Obama entered the stage with a figurative gun loaded with all sorts of ammunition that could be used on domestic issues:47% commentsBain talking pointsOff-shore accountsTax ReturnsFlip-flopping on recordetc.Yet he left the stage with virtually few bullets fired. Gotta leave it all out there man...leave it all on the field.

I liked Chris Cilizza's characterization of it just now on the Tweeter. Firing back at Romney's points today after missing the chance yesterday is like George Costanza's "jerk store" thing.

 

[dparker713]

How about we start with an effective tax rate for the richest people and corporations thats not lower than someone earning 50k a year and then go from there?

Sure. Real quick, what was your effective federal tax rate last year?

25.1%

Sounds like you need a better tax strategy. Good news is that you make a lot of money, so you've got that going for you.

If I made more, I'd be paying less. Makes total sense, right?

More nonsense, or are you really this clueless about our tax code?

Are you really that clueless about asset investing versus consumer spending and the lower cap gains rate?

I know all about it, thanks. Are you saying you make your money from asset investing? Or, that we have a regressive effective tax code?

The inflection point of the SS tax cap creates a regressive rate for a segment of the tax curve. And above a certain threshold the more you earn, the more you can save and take advantage of the lower cap gains rate and other tax advantaged positions.

There are people who make a lot of money and pay a lower effective rate than people who make much less. However, that is the exception, not the norm. Overall, we have a progressive effective tax code, even when including SS, lower cap gain, etc.

Yep, what would you say, this applies to maybe 1% of the population?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

I believe he's saying that the loopholes that are going to be closed are targeted more towards the big corporations and wealthy individuals than the small businesses and middle class, effectively raising taxes at the higher end and lowering them in the middle.

has he actually said that? I don't remember him saying exactly what loopholes he'd close or deductions he'd eliminate

I don't think he's provided any specifics. But the more general point is that something can be revenue-neutral overall, but on an individual basis it's not revenue-neutral. Romney could in theory have a plan that's revenue-neutral, but you personally (or your small business) might end up paying the same, or more, or less than you currently do.

 

[dparker713]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

Get your head out of the sand. The tax rate on earned income has never hurt the 1%. The higher it is the more it keeps the 99% out of the 1%. It keeps 1% in a class that the working class can never work their way in to. The top 1% care about the capital gains rate, their deductions, and their loopholes. The only people that care what the 1% pay on earned income are the 99%. The 1% couldn't care less what they pay on their earned income.

So you're advocating an increase in the cap gains rate? Or just to treat cap gains as normal income?

 

[Disco Stu]

We have a button on our tv that lets you see the words people are saying if you turn the volume down or have no sound. My wife and I are debating an idea where i will turn the tv away from her and read to her what candidates romney and obama are saying but not telling her who is saying them. I think it is easy to get wrapped up in how people look when they say something or how they say it rather then just their words and the ideas behind them. Then my wife will keep score on which answers she thinks are best and will have a totally unbiased scorecard at the end of the night. Obviously i cannot tip her off as to who is answering the questions so I will have to skip the parts when they mention the names. I'm trying to practice right now but can't find a show that would be similar to the debate. It's gonna be a fun night and I picked up some chicken and dumplings to heat up later.

Well we had to pause a bunch of times because it was hard to read out loud at the pace they were speaking but this was a big success i think. I raised my right arm when obama talked and left arm when romney did. When they said something she liked she gave that column a point. She had romney winning 79-62. she said she didnt know who was saying what except when it was obvious and she really tried to keep as neutral as possible. she said i did a great job reading and i am pooped! My wife actually has some experience in economics (home economics)so this was right up her alley. She thought the best thing romney said was about wanting to cut spending but grow the economy and not raise taxes. She liked when obama said education was important. Cant wait until the next one but i think she's going to try to be the reader but that will probably not go to well. lol. we'll see, seeya guys chicken &dumps time!

Love this shtick.

 

[Politician Spock]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

Get your head out of the sand. The tax rate on earned income has never hurt the 1%. The higher it is the more it keeps the 99% out of the 1%. It keeps 1% in a class that the working class can never work their way in to. The top 1% care about the capital gains rate, their deductions, and their loopholes. The only people that care what the 1% pay on earned income are the 99%. The 1% couldn't care less what they pay on their earned income.

So you're advocating an increase in the cap gains rate? Or just to treat cap gains as normal income?

I would not object to either. But keeping deductions and loopholes the same could render such change moot.

 

[NCCommish]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

Get your head out of the sand. The tax rate on earned income has never hurt the 1%. The higher it is the more it keeps the 99% out of the 1%. It keeps 1% in a class that the working class can never work their way in to. The top 1% care about the capital gains rate, their deductions, and their loopholes. The only people that care what the 1% pay on earned income are the 99%. The 1% couldn't care less what they pay on their earned income.

Ok so by your spin we should see him calling for raising capital gains taxes right? But we haven't. We have seen him say he will do away with Estate taxes. Who does that cut taxes for? Not the average American who is never exposed to the estate tax but it will sure help out the wealthy. So basically what I see here is you filling in the blanks with your own preconceived ideas, not going by anything the campaign has said. He hasn't said he would raise the capital gains tax or do anything about carried interest.The man called for reducing all marginal rates 20%. I would suggest it is you that needs to remove their head from somewhere and I am not talking the sand.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

RAGONS:

 

[adonis]

I find it odd that Obama entered the stage with a figurative gun loaded with all sorts of ammunition that could be used on domestic issues:

47% comments

Bain talking points

Off-shore accounts

Tax Returns

Flip-flopping on record

etc.

Yet he left the stage with virtually few bullets fired. Gotta leave it all out there man...leave it all on the field.

When Romney came out and threw everything he said in the last 18 months in the trash they were caught flat footed. Plus this president just isn't great in debates. But you can see today how it's going to play out. The call outs have already started and they are going to build. Romney left himself vulnerable in many ways and it is going to get exploited.

There's simply no way the Obama campaign could have gone into this debate expecting anything less than what Romney threw at them.Have they not been paying attention to him in ads, campaign trail, interviews?

I think they made a political calculation to play it smooth and above the fray, and it was a piss-poor decision. They had the high ground on the issues, and thought it was enough to win the debate, and they were wrong.

What they did do was give Romney enough rope to hang himself - at a later time. Trouble with that is, often a later time doesn't come, and something else comes up in the meantime.

The people this debate benefitted the most were the news media, who now can talk of a tightening race and feed the air wave gods for another few days, and the Romney campaign who can raise more money and cite a victory in a debate, as if it means anything due to the nature of how it was won.

 

[Johnnymac]

He's talking about cutting the tax rate on earned income. The top 1% makes very little of their overall income in earned income. They make the vast majority of their income on capital gains income. They get tax deductions regardless of whether their tax liability is from earned income or capital gains income. Getting rid of tax deductions is far more painfui for them than their tax rate on their earned income.

"We are going to cut taxes on everyone by 20 percent including the top 1 percent." Do they have you spin everything he says professionally or is this just a hobby?

Get your head out of the sand. The tax rate on earned income has never hurt the 1%. The higher it is the more it keeps the 99% out of the 1%. It keeps 1% in a class that the working class can never work their way in to. The top 1% care about the capital gains rate, their deductions, and their loopholes. The only people that care what the 1% pay on earned income are the 99%. The 1% couldn't care less what they pay on their earned income.

You sure about that?

 

[Koya]

Romney won, easily. Now, what effect will that have we will see. Heck, my wife, a bleeding heart, liked what he said a lot, but had a good point... He sounded like a dem.

So, which Romney is it? Can he bring new ideas, move to the center this late and have it take hold? can the dems show that this is another example of just who Romney is?

Either way, round one to Romney and the dems now must combat that momentum

 

[adonis]

Obama, remember your ABC's.

Always

Be

Closing

You had an opportunity here to nail Romney on issues, and you let him walk...not only walk, but walk away with a perceived victory.

We realize it's a marathon, not a sprint, but when you can cut the Achilles heel off your opponent near the starting line, why not do it?

 

[jonessed]

Obama, remember your ABC's.AlwaysBeClosingYou had an opportunity here to nail Romney on issues, and you let him walk...not only walk, but walk away with a perceived victory.We realize it's a marathon, not a sprint, but when you can cut the Achilles heel off your opponent near the starting line, why not do it?

 

[datonn]

With that in mind, I thought that either Obama or the moderator let a *lot* of stuff slide related to Romney's claims and positions. I didn't like that Obama kept going back to the well with "it's simple math..." when discussing Romney's tax cuts and increased military spending...since Romney is obviously betting the farm on said activities growing revenue via less unemployment and rising incomes. I think Romney's plan is flawed, but a high school student taking an economics class can at least tell you where Romney's getting his "tax-neutral" ideas.

You're going to have a hard time finding a serious economist to support what he is betting the farm on here. If high school econ students are learning that tax cuts are revenue neutral then we need to get them competent teachers.

Apples and oranges. I never said what Romney is claiming will work or will prove-out as accurate if implemented (again). I'm just saying he is making a reasoned argument that people of his ilk have been making for decades on the subject. But what other type of world view do you expect the guy to have? He's had a titanium spoon in his mouth his entire life, probably had a 10-20 step lead on "average" people who didn't have Daddy or Daddy's money/reputation/friends/associates who owed Daddy favors, and hasn't ever had to want for anything...other than having people like/support him politically. Kids misbehaving? Hire a nanny or send them off to boarding school. Wondering how you're going to pay the mortgage or the heating/electrical bill this month? When has Romney even seen a heating/electrical bill (I'm sure he's got people for that)? Need a vacation to keep your mental health and/or preserve/strengthen your marriage? Just hop on a private plane and jet off to anywhere in the world where you won't be hunted as an infidel or the Great Satan.The biggest softball that I thought Obama missed last night (thought he did squeak out a small comment about it) was Romney talking about how he preferred private insurance (re: health care) to government health care. Because if your private insurer is charging too much, serving you poorly or too little, etc.? Why, you just cut 'em loose and find yourself a new private insurance provider. Honestly, for even the most conservative and rabid of Republicans/Tea Partiers, how do you think that sounds to millions upon millions of families who, if their current private insurance provider dumped them, would be paying incredibly higher premiums and deductibles (or settle for FAR less care) if they had to go out on the open market (again)?

My wife and I own our own small business. SMALL business. ~$500K in revenues with 15 freelance contractors who help us do most of our work. We are self-insured (Blue Cross, Blue Shield). Last year, a year when none of us (wife, myself, two daughters under the age of 10) was seriously ill, we spent a little over $15,000 on health care. Premiums, deductibles, etc. $15,000! And every year, that number is increasing approximately 2-3 times the pace of inflation. Because we're sick or have lots of chronic, on-going health care issues? No. Because if we told BCBS "...and the horse you rode in on!," what are our other options?

The problem is "hand." The consumer has none. If you don't have insurance, or you're self-insured and your provider can effectively do whatever they want related to your premiums and deductibles, and you develop diabetes/cancer/???, you're done. Bankrupt. Cheaper to die quickly then force your family to live under a bridge. Unless you were born with a titanium spoon in your mouth.

That's the problem related to health care in our country. And that problem won't come close to being solved with "vouchers" for seniors, or with anything else that Romney has been proposing. Obamacare doesn't fix it either! But because the legislation doesn't go far enough...not because it is moving in the wrong direction.

 

[adonis]

Obama, remember your ABC's.AlwaysBeClosing

Always? How about every once in a while to start? There was one moment in the debate, I think around the issue of bank regulation, where Obama landed a couple. But generally he just seemed lost.

What about when Romney made the off-handed remark about not knowing about a certain off-shore outsourcing tax break and needing to find a better accountant. Talk about walking over to the tee, putting the ball on the tee, handing Obama a bat, and putting his face right in front of the ball.Yet Obama seemed to just glance at the bat and say "Meh, not worth it."CMON!

 

[Ursa M]

With that in mind, I thought that either Obama or the moderator let a *lot* of stuff slide related to Romney's claims and positions. I didn't like that Obama kept going back to the well with "it's simple math..." when discussing Romney's tax cuts and increased military spending...since Romney is obviously betting the farm on said activities growing revenue via less unemployment and rising incomes. I think Romney's plan is flawed, but a high school student taking an economics class can at least tell you where Romney's getting his "tax-neutral" ideas.

You're going to have a hard time finding a serious economist to support what he is betting the farm on here. If high school econ students are learning that tax cuts are revenue neutral then we need to get them competent teachers.

Apples and oranges. I never said what Romney is claiming will work or will prove-out as accurate if implemented (again). I'm just saying he is making a reasoned argument that people of his ilk have been making for decades on the subject. But what other type of world view do you expect the guy to have? He's had a titanium spoon in his mouth his entire life, probably had a 10-20 step lead on "average" people who didn't have Daddy or Daddy's money/reputation/friends/associates who owed Daddy favors, and hasn't ever had to want for anything...other than having people like/support him politically. Kids misbehaving? Hire a nanny or send them off to boarding school. Wondering how you're going to pay the mortgage or the heating/electrical bill this month? When has Romney even seen a heating/electrical bill (I'm sure he's got people for that)? Need a vacation to keep your mental health and/or preserve/strengthen your marriage? Just hop on a private plane and jet off to anywhere in the world where you won't be hunted as an infidel or the Great Satan.The biggest softball that I thought Obama missed last night (thought he did squeak out a small comment about it) was Romney talking about how he preferred private insurance (re: health care) to government health care. Because if your private insurer is charging too much, serving you poorly or too little, etc.? Why, you just cut 'em loose and find yourself a new private insurance provider. Honestly, for even the most conservative and rabid of Republicans/Tea Partiers, how do you think that sounds to millions upon millions of families who, if their current private insurance provider dumped them, would be paying incredibly higher premiums and deductibles (or settle for FAR less care) if they had to go out on the open market (again)?

My wife and I own our own small business. SMALL business. ~$500K in revenues with 15 freelance contractors who help us do most of our work. We are self-insured (Blue Cross, Blue Shield). Last year, a year when none of us (wife, myself, two daughters under the age of 10) was seriously ill, we spent a little over $15,000 on health care. Premiums, deductibles, etc. $15,000! And every year, that number is increasing approximately 2-3 times the pace of inflation. Because we're sick or have lots of chronic, on-going health care issues? No. Because if we told BCBS "...and the horse you rode in on!," what are our other options?

The problem is "hand." The consumer has none. If you don't have insurance, or you're self-insured and your provider can effectively do whatever they want related to your premiums and deductibles, and you develop diabetes/cancer/???, you're done. Bankrupt. Cheaper to die quickly then force your family to live under a bridge. Unless you were born with a titanium spoon in your mouth.

That's the problem related to health care in our country. And that problem won't come close to being solved with "vouchers" for seniors, or with anything else that Romney has been proposing. Obamacare doesn't fix it either! But because the legislation doesn't go far enough...not because it is moving in the wrong direction.

 

[Don Quixote]

I find it odd that Obama entered the stage with a figurative gun loaded with all sorts of ammunition that could be used on domestic issues:47% commentsBain talking pointsOff-shore accountsTax ReturnsFlip-flopping on recordetc.Yet he left the stage with virtually few bullets fired. Gotta leave it all out there man...leave it all on the field.

I liked Chris Cilizza's characterization of it just now on the Tweeter. Firing back at Romney's points today after missing the chance yesterday is like George Costanza's "jerk store" thing.

Weigel made a similar joke, that Obama said in his speech that the jerk store called and they're out of Romney. I'm currently being amused by Weigel retweeting people thinking he was being serious.

 

[Slapdash]

Obama, remember your ABC's.AlwaysBeClosingYou had an opportunity here to nail Romney on issues, and you let him walk...not only walk, but walk away with a perceived victory.We realize it's a marathon, not a sprint, but when you can cut the Achilles heel off your opponent near the starting line, why not do it?

Because it doesn't work if the person you're doing it to just claims that it isn't true. He went after Romney on this point several times and it didn't play well to the public at large.

 

[humpback]

I apologize if this has been asked but I can't skim through 32 pages....Romney says his tax plan is to lower tax rates and close some loopholes and deductions. Overall, he says his tax plan is revenue neutral. my question is, if its revenue nuetral, whats the point?I can only guess the answer as he didn't give any specifics but it seems to me like while the overall plan is revenue neutral, some people will be paying less and others will be paying more. I am going to go ahead and guess that the rich people will end up paying less and the middle class is going to end up paying more, while the poor has some of their programs taken away. if his plan is to lower my tax rates 1-2% but then eliminate deductions so that I end up paying more, he is not effectively lowering my tax rate. so thanks, but no thanks....

Our tax system is built to support large, established corporations with lobbying power. Smaller corporations and specific industries get hammered with the true rates which are some of the highest in the world, while more established companies get those rates reduced via tax breaks, rebates, etc. I believe the idea is to foster competition by creating a more level playing field. Whoever is president I really hope this gets done.On the personal income tax side the idea is to lower rates and simplify the code for small businesses by cutting loopholes for wealthy individuals. I believe this is where the particulars get fuzzy as people like loopholes and aren't going to want them cut. I imagine this is why Romney isn't stating specifically what they are going to be.You can argue the math, but that's the general idea behind the changes. Basically, spur job growth.

how does lowering tax rates while closing loopholes spur job growth? suppose it really is revenue neutral and my small business has its tax rate lowered but, at the same time, some of my loopholes to lower my taxes are taken away so I end up paying about the same in taxes. how does this help me?

I believe he's saying that the loopholes that are going to be closed are targeted more towards the big corporations and wealthy individuals than the small businesses and middle class, effectively raising taxes at the higher end and lowering them in the middle.

has he actually said that? I don't remember him saying exactly what loopholes he'd close or deductions he'd eliminate

He hasn't really said which ones, but he has said he would reduce them for the wealthy.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-09/romney-says-he-won-t-cut-taxes-on-high-income-earners.html

 

[Disco Stu]

Didn't watch. Can I get a fairly non partisan breakdown on why Mitt 'won'?

Mitt seemed thoroughly more prepared and that is all it really came down to.

It's almost like Obama has another full-time job.

 

[LHUCKS]

People are crazy if they think Romney will not be fiscally conservative.

Comparisons to GW are unwarranted.

What Romney says, and what he will actually do will be two different things.

The guy is cut from fiscal conservative cloth, top strategy firm exect, Ivy league MBA etc. No way will he not be fiscally conservative.

I personally love the idea of cutting out the loopholes and deductions, I want more detail, but I love the idea...these are how Warren Buffet gets away with paying 8% effective rate(or whatever it is).

 

[LHUCKS]

Didn't watch. Can I get a fairly non partisan breakdown on why Mitt 'won'?

Mitt seemed thoroughly more prepared and that is all it really came down to.

It's almost like Obama has another full-time job.

It was a homefield advantage for Romney, no question.

 

[NYG Endzone]

People are crazy if they think Romney will not be fiscally conservative. Comparisons to GW are unwarranted.What Romney says, and what he will actually do will be two different things.The guy is cut from fiscal conservative cloth, top strategy firm exect, Ivy league MBA etc. No way will he not be fiscally conservative. I personally love the idea of cutting out the loopholes and deductions, I want more detail, but I love the idea...these are how Warren Buffet gets away with paying 8% effective rate(or whatever it is).

I agree with all except Buffet. The guy is the number one shareholder of Berkshire ... I'm pretty sure he pays enough in taxes. Even though he conveniently forgets all the dividends he received (plus controlling interests in large C-Corps) are double taxed.