Romney 2012?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ignorance, all around.

And you amply demonstrate that.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not sure where the CBO gets their info from, but there's a world Great Recession going on with demands for goods and services dropping. The US is barely growing between one and two percent every year, and that's not enough growth to continue job creation - anywhere in the world. Even in high tech industries where the economic future growth lies, a few big companies are doing okay while most are laying off by the thousands.

If those successful companies with big cash reserves were as optimistic as the CBO, they'd be spending their money for growth. They're still not doing that.

Middle class wages and benefits are not increasing fast enough for more consumer spending; many are trying to pay off their credit card and mortgage debt. They no longer have the option of using their home equity as a piggy bank.

It's going to be a long-term struggle for the world economies to improve significantly enough for any job growth.

Quote:

The euro area (EA17) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 11.3% in July 2012, stable compared with June. It was 10.1% in July 2011. The EU27 unemployment rate was 10.4% in July 2012, also stable compared with June. It was 9.6% in July 2011, according to data issued by Eurostat the European Union statistics office.

12-million jobs? ROFLMAO

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's just not a lot of evidence that individual and private control is more efficient or helpful for a lot of the duties that Government performs. The problem for your argument is that most Americans don't agree with the SPECIFICS of what you propose. In general, sure, your above line sounds very reasonable. But when specific elements of things that are currently ran by the government are proposed to be privatized - Medicare, SS, food safety inspections, highway maintenance - these bills fail to garner public support, every single time. Why do you think that is?

A reasonable observer would admit that there are some things handled better by private businesses, and some handled better by government. I don't see any admission of this from the current GOP.

Re: Romney's speech, I think it was well-delivered but will ultimately fail to sway any voters. He just doesn't have the rhetorical ability to use a speech to forward his central argument - even the line you wrote above contains nothing new whatsoever for voters to think about. The theme of the Romney campaign is the EXACT same theme the GOP has been pushing since 1980, and if you didn't already agree with it, are you going to start agreeing because of the speech Romney gave? I have doubts about that, and I suspect that we will see only a small polling bump for Romney after this - if any at all.

Cycloptichorn

I think the issue Romney put forward is not that government should stop doing things, but rather that; it should do LESS than it is doing now. Our government has become far too intrusivee in the lives of people and in the economic activity that ultimately sustains the country. We have reached a point where the adverse side effects of many government programs far exceeds the direct benefits they promise (and so rarely deliver).

Romney also addressed the point that individual economic initiative has long been a distinguishing featire of American life (you may wish to refresh your recollections of deToqueville's "Democracy in America"), and that the last century amply demonstrated the failures of centrally managed economies.

I believe the issues supporting this today have been fairly well described by their protagonists and in the media as well. They include (1) a failed stimulus that offered few "shovel ready" projects, but merely sustained already overinflated government bureaucracies at a time when we sorely needed to downsize them to address the growing public sector debt crisis; (2) an environmentally driven pursuit of unattainable energy goals that has wasted billions in failed subsidized enterprises, and delayed new energy investments that would have quickly improved jobs creation here and significantly reduced our national cash outflows; (3) dangerously accelerating Federal deficits supporting excess government growth at a time in whichj high levels of public debt and excess government regulation are threatening the stability of modern states in Europe.

Whether these issues will resonate with the public here is something about which we may disagree. However we will both get some new information on the matter in the election ahead.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

If you could convince the Republicans to get out of people's lives, you might be onto something there. But more government interference on the social side, with less government on the business side? I'm not convinced that's believable (esp. given the rate of government growth under the last couple of Republican administrations).

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

My same thought. Mr. Green

Not only that, but if the republican administrations actually followed that path, why is it that our economy does much better under democrats?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Romney also addressed the point that individual economic initiative has long been a distinguishing featire of American life (you may wish to refresh your recollections of deToqueville's "Democracy in America"), and that the last century amply demonstrated the failures of centrally managed economies.

Ah yes, the century in which America established itself as the completely unrivaled super-power of the world, with a military that is unchallengable and an economy which dwarfs those of our contemporary nations? There was a tremendous amount of central planning that lead to these developments; it wasn't the free market that brought this about, but rather, a combination of government action and private action. That's the point.

Re: the stimulus, you'd be hard-pressed to find economists who believe it failed. The vast majority of them agree that it helped the economy during a tough time, and many would argue that the biggest problem with it was that it was too small.

Re: the energy issue, how do you respond to Romney's stated goal of the US achieving 'energy independence' by 2020? Without a heavy investment (and government intervention) in alternative energy sources, this is purely impossible; no amount of fossil fuel production domestically will let us achieve energy independence in 8 years.

Re: excessive regulation stifling business, this is a popular trope put forward by your side, but with little empirical evidence to back it up.

As I said - we could have been having this exact same conversation any time over the last 30 years, because none of the ideas you present are any different than the boilerplate GOP message. Romney isn't presenting anything new at all, just claiming that the other side has failed. I don't think that's a winning message, and I think it will be very hard on him in the upcoming months if he cannot flesh out a vision of his own - especially when we hit the debate season. Obama will simply fillet Romney in the debates if Romney cannot provide specifics as to how his plans will work.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

If you could convince the Republicans to get out of people's lives, you might be onto something there. But more government interference on the social side, with less government on the business side? I'm not convinced that's believable (esp. given the rate of government growth under the last couple of Republican administrations).

There's a lot about their current plan that is unbelievable. For example, Romney's economic plans revolve around 'closing loopholes' in order to make up revenues lost due to slashed tax rates across the board. But, he's a guy who has made a fortune by exploiting loopholes; what evidence does he present that he's actually interested in closing these loopholes at all? The idea that he will actually do so counters every bit of experience we have with the guy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ah yes, the century in which America established itself as the completely unrivaled super-power of the world, with a military that is unchallengable and an economy which dwarfs those of our contemporary nations? There was a tremendous amount of central planning that lead to these developments; it wasn't the free market that brought this about, but rather, a combination of government action and private action. That's the point.

No. That's a point, but not the heart of the matter. Our military build up was a reaction to the challenge presented by a (then) confident and expansive Soviet empire, and from the perspective of history, it was probably excessive. Again, I never asserted that NO government action was the goal, merely LESS of it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: the stimulus, you'd be hard-pressed to find economists who believe it failed. The vast majority of them agree that it helped the economy during a tough time, and many would argue that the biggest problem with it was that it was too small.

I agree that the stimulus sustained and expanded some government employment, yielding short term gains in demand. However the net effect of the stimulus and the debt it created will be a drag on our economy for a very long time, while far greater short-term benefits would have been realized without any new debt merely by earlier action to permit the development of domestiv fossil energy resources. In that sense the stimulus was a clear net failure.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: the energy issue, how do you respond to Romney's stated goal of the US achieving 'energy independence' by 2020? Without a heavy investment (and government intervention) in alternative energy sources, this is purely impossible; no amount of fossil fuel production domestically will let us achieve energy independence in 8 years.

Like a lot of Obama's "goals" they are empty words, and short on real action. Your point about alternate energy resources being necessary for energy independence is demonstrably false. They are but an insignificant component of our energy consumption and far more expensive than readily available conventional and nuclear alternatives. Far more gains have already been achieved through natural gas and petroleum developments in the 48 states. Much more would already be on the table (along with a few million more jobs) if the administration had not been so restrictive and foot dragging on new developments in Alaska, off shore and other domestic land areas.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Re: excessive regulation stifling business, this is a popular trope put forward by your side, but with little empirical evidence to back it up.

"Trope" is a nice word from the blogosphere, however your empty phrase above is obviously false. Do YOU have any evidence suggesting that there are or have been NO regulatory driven inhibitions to needed economic investment in thsi country?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I said - we could have been having this exact same conversation any time over the last 30 years, because none of the ideas you present are any different than the boilerplate GOP message. Romney isn't presenting anything new at all, just claiming that the other side has failed. I don't think that's a winning message, and I think it will be very hard on him in the upcoming months if he cannot flesh out a vision of his own - especially when we hit the debate season. Obama will simply fillet Romney in the debates if Romney cannot provide specifics as to how his plans will work.

NOTHING the contending political parties are offering is new in the long history of human politics. Indeed the social welfare and managed economy stuff Obama and Pelosi have been peddling, with such ill effect for the past four years, was the central failed experiment of the ghastly 20th century of the modern and developing world. The failed Soviet system and even the failures of the far more moderate western European states are already very obvious - right before our eyes - in terms of both failed economic competitiveness and the enervation of public ambition and creativeness that is their legacy.

I have a very hard time visualizing how Obama's rhetoric, with all his vague, lofty and imprecise generalities will challenge Romney in the area of substantive particulars about what he will actually do. Obama has been very long on vague promises and very lacking in concrete, productive action to achierve them. He and his Administration have not even allowed a Senate vote on a budget for the past three years.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The stimulus did more than pay government workers. It also gave consumers more in tax savings that they spent to help our economy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The stimulus did more than pay government workers. It also gave consumers more in tax savings that they spent to help our economy.

Are you actually suggesting that tax cuts benefit economic activity ???????

Careful there, your political friends might turn on you.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

You wrote,

Quote:

Are you actually suggesting that tax cuts benefit economic activity ???????

Of coarse it did; but that was because most of those tax cuts went to the middle class. It was also a time when many people lost their jobs, and salaries did not keep up with inflation. It was the "best of times" to lower taxes for the middle class. Also, those who received unemployment benefits increased consumer spending. Since consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy, of coarse, it helped our economy.

Without those tax cuts, our economy would have shrunk further.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Are you suggesting that ONLY tax cuts to the "middle class" (I use quotes because the contending parties use this vague term to mean different things) promote greater economic activity???

What about tax cuts foe businesses or even people making more than (say) $250k/year??? Don't they also stimulate job creation and demand?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The stimulus did more than pay government workers. It also gave consumers more in tax savings that they spent to help our economy.

Are you actually suggesting that tax cuts benefit economic activity ???????

Careful there, your political friends might turn on you.

No, we acknowledge that tax cuts can lead to beneficial economic activity. But only in the short run; they aren't a driver of long-term growth.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

What about tax cuts foe businesses or even people making more than (say) $250k/year??? Don't they also stimulate job creation and demand?

No, they generally do not. Those in the lower tax brackets are far more likely to spend any additional monies they receive in tax cuts immediately, which provides a direct stimulus effect to the economy.

The wealthy are much less likely to spend their tax savings immediately. Instead, they will invest that money - which provides only a minor boost to our economy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

What about tax cuts foe businesses or even people making more than (say) $250k/year??? Don't they also stimulate job creation and demand?

Who said such a stupid thing? I sure didn't say anything of the sort, so why are you addressing me with that q?

But, there is always a "however." And that however is the fact that US corporations actual income tax payments is one of the lowest in any industrialized country.

From the NYT.

Quote:

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.

As for personal income taxes, the majority of Americans agree that the wealthy should pay more in income taxes.

From CNNMoney.

Quote:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Hey, rich folks! The American people are putting you on notice. They want you to pay higher taxes.

Two new polls suggest there is broad support for raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year, and all in the name of deficit reduction.

Heck, even a majority of Republicans want the rich to pay more.

A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats.

Where am I wrong?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

What about tax cuts foe businesses or even people making more than (say) $250k/year??? Don't they also stimulate job creation and demand?

Two points in response to your question:

1) Your question implies an unstated premise: that letting Bush's tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250k deprives them of a tax cut altogether. This premise is false. Cutting tax rates on just the lower brackets still gives them a cut. After all, part of their income falls into those brackets. Granted, their cut would merely be the same amount as that of $250k earners. But they would get a cut.

2) To answer your question anyway: While high-income earners and businesses stimulate the economy, too, they don't stimulate it as much. That's because they'd save a higher percentage of their tax cuts, spending a correspondingly lower percentage. With America's GDP currently hampered on the demand side, not the supply side, tax cuts for lower incomes stimulate GDP growth more than ones for high incomes. (The amount of the cut being equal.)

So to maximize stimulus bang per tax-cut buck, you need to focus the cuts on the lowest brackets, not the highest. Indeed, I would start at the very bottom, by dramatically expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Where am I wrong?

The Republicans favor a simpler tax code with fewer tax deductions and lower overall rates with roughly equivalent actual tax collections. The problem for most companies is that the tax code os far too complex, with far too many government picks of winners and losers. Most companies (mine included) pay the full 35% corporate tax rate and thast is the HIGHEST rate in the modern world,

Everyone, everywhere favors more taxes (or a higher share of the total) for the other guy. There is nothing either new or remarkable about that. The problem is in defining the point at which one has "too much" or becomes "rich". The fact is that a family income of $250K/year is hardly rich for those in the bay area or a very large number of businesses taxed at the maximum individual rate, Even one making $500K/year is hardly in the Warren (or Jimmy) Buffet category.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That your company is paying the highest rate belies the whole picture about rates and amounts actually paid.

Republicans didn't say they favor a simpler tax code; they agreed that the wealthy should pay more taxes.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You keep saying the repubs wanna lower taxes on the rich, now you say they want the rich to pay mire taxes.
It can't be both ways, so which is it?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

You are stupid, aren't you? But I repeat myself. I posted an article from CNNMoney that shows republicans by a majority wants to increase taxes on the rich.

You really are confused; the GOP's mandate is to lower taxes for the rich. That's much different than what most Americans wishes are concerning higher taxes for the rich.

You must've flunked common sense class.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know