The Romney Con

[AngelinaCatHub]

Romney couldn't run the state of MA when he was governor. Therefore, it's difficult to understand why this guy thinks he'd be an effective President!?!?

Sorry, but, I have to disagree. The 8 years we had under Bush 43 were essentially 8 years of big government overspending, definitely NOT conservatism. Your assertion that somehow conservatives took a budget surplus and decided to pass tax cuts to create deficits is false. The tax cuts were implemented to help the country out of the recession that started at the end of the Clinton presidency and perhaps you will recall that the Clinton recession was exacerbated by a certain event that happened on 11 September, 2001.

Fortunately, the tax cuts worked and we had a nicely expanding economy from 2003 to 2006 - until the liberal Dems took control of the congress and the Senate. The decline was shifted into overdrive in 2008, and has snowballed since.

I strongly agree. You can't pin this on either party, but BOTH parties. You put them all in pot and pull one out you could not tell one from another. They are self serving and for a portion of our taxes they will throw our money at people to buy their votes. Tons literally of our money.

I am conservative but I'm a registered Democrat. I see no Republicans actually conservative barring Newt and Cain, and I wonder about Newt. Cain was rail roaded off the board, plain and simple. Ron Paul would be the absolute best for our internal Country, but could get us into real hot water over his foreign policies. Obama is a hallucinating, narcissistic, megla maniac and is very dangerous. Under all circumstances he must go. Romney is a RINO and most Republicans can see it. I don't understand this but it is true. My belief is the gov behind the gov is kneading him into power in the event Nobamma loses. Just my opinion. 'Hub

[tobee43]

it's all a fix to get Obama back in. that is exactly why there are no viable candidates to be had. christy would be my first and only choice on the Republican side of the story, and we aren't going to be seeing that anytime soon.

i'm neither party and vote for the person. we need to get this dead lock out of congress and get this country moving again, i do not believe any of those running on the Republican side can do it, for that matter not even Obama can, it's going to have to be those we vote into the houses that gets us on the move again.

[GoingDown]

I really don't like any of the candidates. Not even Obama. I can't bring myself to vote for a Republican, because I disagree with them on most issues. And yet, I can't vote for Obama, either. I think he was never really qualified to be president-- he had absolutely no experience and it shows. I voted for Nader last time just as a protest vote. I don't think there will even be a third party running this time around.

I wish there was "none of the above" choice on every ballot, so we could express our dissatisfaction with the choices they give us.

[DYLAN150]

Goingdown: Ditto

[msm859]

Sorry, but, I have to disagree. The 8 years we had under Bush 43 were essentially 8 years of big government overspending, definitely NOT conservatism. Your assertion that somehow conservatives took a budget surplus and decided to pass tax cuts to create deficits is false. The tax cuts were implemented to help the country out of the recession that started at the end of the Clinton presidency and perhaps you will recall that the Clinton recession was exacerbated by a certain event that happened on 11 September, 2001.

Fortunately, the tax cuts worked and we had a nicely expanding economy from 2003 to 2006 - until the liberal Dems took control of the congress and the Senate. The decline was shifted into overdrive in 2008, and has snowballed since.

Actually I don't think you will find a single serious economist who would agree that the Bush tax cuts "worked"

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

There are a number of other similar findings. We had the perfect A-B test. A tax "rate" under Clinton and a tax "rate" under Bush. Clinton had the right balance of high enough to generate enough revenue to balance the budget and low enough to promote growth. Simply put supply side economics/ trickle down does NOT work. Bush senior had it right -- it is voodoo economics. We tried it with Reagan did not work, tried it with Bush -- still trying and still not working. Worse thing Obama ever did was to extend them. Hopefully at the end of this year they will expire.

[filed]

Actually I don't think you will find a single serious economist who would agree that the Bush tax cuts "worked"

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9

There are a number of other similar findings. We had the perfect A-B test. A tax "rate" under Clinton and a tax "rate" under Bush. Clinton had the right balance of high enough to generate enough revenue to balance the budget and low enough to promote growth. Simply put supply side economics/ trickle down does NOT work. Bush senior had it right -- it is voodoo economics. We tried it with Reagan did not work, tried it with Bush -- still trying and still not working. Worse thing Obama ever did was to extend them. Hopefully at the end of this year they will expire.

The tax cuts of 2003 absolutely worked, and the article/link you provide does not prove otherwise. Comparing overall levels of earnings from the peak at 2000 is not appropriate, to say the least. Tax cuts, when they are true reductions in the overall rates of taxation, definitely work - Just ask Art Laffer.

FWIW, when you make changes in tax policy temporary, it does not have the usual result in terms of changes in behavior. Permanent reductions in the overall level of income taxation at the Federal level is what is needed. Additionally, a temporary agreement to keep already too high levels of government intrusion and taxation the same - is NOT a tax cut.

[filed]

Pretty sure just about any serious economist will acknowledge that those tax cuts were beneficial to the overall level of economic growth after they were implemented. Additionally, just listen to President Obama's own words regarding how lower taxes increases economic growth and opportunity:

"According to AFP, President Obama urged Congress last December to prevent a massive tax hike on families and small businesses because higher taxes “would hurt the economy and cost US jobs. … ‘[I]f this framework fails... Americans will see it in smaller paychecks that will have the effect of fewer jobs,’ he said.”

And that’s not the only time the president argued that preventing tax hikes is good for jobs and economic growth. For example:

President Obama: “I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector. ... I urge members of Congress to pass these tax cuts as swiftly as possible. Getting that done is an essential ingredient in spurring economic growth over the short run.” (Remarks, 12/15/10)

President Obama: “By a wide bipartisan margin, both houses of Congress have now passed a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy and will create jobs for the American people.” (Remarks, 12/17/10)

President Obama: “By putting more money in people's pockets, and helping companies grow, we're going to see people being able to spend a little more, we're going to spur hiring - we're going to strengthen our entire economy.” (Weekly Address, 12/11/10)

[IamOld]

Banca, we forget he (or what) shall (seemingly) not be named - the MASSIVE military budget, and about EIGHT HUNDRED overseas bases....

I still do not understand what difference any of them will make now that we have an ever rising national debt which is at 15.2 trillion and will be around 16.7 by the time the next joker in chief gets sworn in.

They have to crash the economy (something they won't purposely do) in order to get the deficit down to a reasonable level.

Since most of the budget already is social security, medicare and medicaid no one will have the balls to cut these programs without the fear of a pitch fork up their @%&$!

Ron Paul who I like and will vote for if he happens to make it to the general election will not only not implement his programs due to lack of congressional and public support, but if he does implement them his life will be in danger.

Imagine being the leader that actually tells 312 million people we must take personally responsibility for our lives? That won't go over too well with many folks.

When JFK (the democrat) said,

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

Not too many Americans (especially Obama supporters) would act upon this.

[IamOld]

Sorry filed, tax cuts are very poor stimulants, especially if they're aimed at the upper crust.

This nation averaged about 60-70% maximum marginal income tax from 1945-Reagan, and in general, the economy was doing very well thank you. Under Eisenhower in the 50's - when if you had a pulse you had a job - was...91%.

Indeed (and I see the word 'socialist' bandied about) according to a certain "news" network, Ike would be a commie today...Ike supported the right to unionize, Soc Security, progressive taxation, and railed against the - his words - military-industrial complex.

[IamOld]

Filed - take a look at the average wages for Americans in constant dollars here - they have FALLEN in the last decade. Sorry - tax cuts for the rich do not and have never worked.

Take a look at especially table H 17 at the bottom of the page. DOwnloads into Excel.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

The tax cuts of 2003 absolutely worked, and the article/link you provide does not prove otherwise. Comparing overall levels of earnings from the peak at 2000 is not appropriate, to say the least. Tax cuts, when they are true reductions in the overall rates of taxation, definitely work - Just ask Art Laffer.

FWIW, when you make changes in tax policy temporary, it does not have the usual result in terms of changes in behavior. Permanent reductions in the overall level of income taxation at the Federal level is what is needed. Additionally, a temporary agreement to keep already too high levels of government intrusion and taxation the same - is NOT a tax cut.

[filed]

IamOld, tax cuts (permanent reductions in the rates of income taxation at the federal level - for everyone) definitely work to increase economic growth. I am not aware that anyone has ever postulated that tax cuts (or tax increases for that matter) have an impact on average wages.

[IamOld]

IamOld, tax cuts (permanent reductions in the rates of income taxation at the federal level - for everyone) definitely work to increase economic growth. I am not aware that anyone has ever postulated that tax cuts (or tax increases for that matter) have an impact on average wages.

Filed, hello - I should have been more careful - tax cuts to those people who have to spend most of their wages - aka the working class - do help- however, tax cuts to those who are wealthy stimulate nothing - it does cause more money chasing "investment" opportunities in, for example, commodities, as these folks simply have nothing left to spend on.

Also, were tax cuts to have worked, the economy in teh 2000's should have been skyrocketing...and it wasn't.

[filed]

IamOld, the tax cuts, which were not implemented until 2003, definitely worked and got us out of the Clinton recession, and yielded good economic growth until late in 2006. Then you will recall that the Liberals were elected and took over congress, and really ramped up the economically disastrous policies. Exacerbated tremendously by the Presidential election of 2008, and we are still going downward from there.

[IamOld]

IamOld, the tax cuts, which were not implemented until 2003, definitely worked and got us out of the Clinton recession, and yielded good economic growth until late in 2006. Then you will recall that the Liberals were elected and took over congress, and really ramped up the economically disastrous policies. Exacerbated tremendously by the Presidential election of 2008, and we are still going downward from there.

Sorry old chap, cannot agree here - Clinton left office with an economy in good shape - except for the tech bubble which the Fed Reserve (and he) encouraged - budget was in great shape, etc. In comes Bush - massive tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars on the national credit card, and ultra low interest rates to compensate for the hemorrhaging of jobs and the falling average income of folks...wars cannot be fought without taxes. However, let us think what would have happened if on our paychecks there would have been a line item surtax for the wars...

[msm859]

The tax cuts of 2003 absolutely worked, and the article/link you provide does not prove otherwise. Comparing overall levels of earnings from the peak at 2000 is not appropriate, to say the least. Tax cuts, when they are true reductions in the overall rates of taxation, definitely work - Just ask Art Laffer.

FWIW, when you make changes in tax policy temporary, it does not have the usual result in terms of changes in behavior. Permanent reductions in the overall level of income taxation at the Federal level is what is needed. Additionally, a temporary agreement to keep already too high levels of government intrusion and taxation the same - is NOT a tax cut.

Quite familiar with the "Laffer curve" got a BS in Economics in 1981-- was a hot topic at the time with Reagan pushing it. I suggest it would be better to talk to David Stockman Reagans' budget director.

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/bill-roy/2011-05-09/david-stockman-reagans-director-omb-speaks-out#.TwtRoJjN70c

Taxes today are at a historical LOW. They need to be raised. What we are doing right now is watching a slow train wreck. Today 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. At what percentage do you think this will be a problem? I believe it already is. It might be true that it would not be a good idea to raise taxes on the "job creators" during a recession -- however, the "job creators" are the middle class -- because they are the ones that buy the goods and services that cause business to hire people. The only jobs the super rich are going to create are perhaps for yacht and plane manufactures. A business person does not consider if his top marginal tax rate is 35 vs 39.6% if he is contemplating creating new jobs. If you own a business you hire enough people to supply the products or services you sell based on the DEMAND -- i.e. buyers. It is the middle class the fuels the economy in the country by "buying" goods and services. When they have no money and stop buying jobs are lost. The super rich should be taxed higher so that we can use the money to rebuild our infrastructure -- new jobs that will then support other new jobs, reduce the costs of higher education so that our college graduates are not saddled with huge debt which further dampens the economy, the lists could go on. Remember the game of Monopoly it ends when 1 person owns everything. This is all Econ 101 and the writing is on the wall.