[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
I am out good night all[/quote]
Please bring something of substance should you return.
“Binders full of women”
This will be the “Big Bird” of the night. Wait until Jon Stewert & Colbert get a hold of it tomorrow night.
Regarding the impact of tax cuts on revenues, this paper gives a pretty good account of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts that - from my understanding - resembles what Romney is proposing.
Individual Taxpayer Response to Tax Cuts 1982-1984 with Implications forthe Revenue Maximizing Tax Rate | NBER - I’m sure there’s a more ‘modern’ pdf somewhere.
Lindsey finds that about one third of the revenue lost through the tax cut was recouped through increased economic activity, which is far from revenue improving.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The strongest states in the US have the most small businesses and the most diversity in their economy. Single industry economies cannot weather market downturns (Detroit). There is no correlation between large corporate tax cuts and economic growth and this has been stated over and over. To grow and economy you need a fertile ground for entrepeneurs and small businesses who want to bring new products, methods and innovative ideas to a market place.[/quote]
Can you provide the data that shows this correlation?
Also my take on what Romney said was that he wants tax cuts for small not large businesses.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Education subsidies create jobs by allowing the cost of education to go down and become more affordable. The more affordable a product becomes the more people’s willingness to pay increases opening the range of new people into the education market place. With more people in the education market place more economic opportunities occur because those who are educated have higher absorptive capacity (generally) for new ideas. Education generally leads to information exchange or positive spillovers which creates new methods or ways of doing things. WIth new ways of doing things people may pursue economic ventures. ====> harvard economist Edward Glaeser (Republican)[/quote]
I used the GI Bill. I did not have more opportunities when I graduated.
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
Regarding the impact of tax cuts on revenues, this paper gives a pretty good account of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts that - from my understanding - resembles what Romney is proposing.
Individual Taxpayer Response to Tax Cuts 1982-1984 with Implications forthe Revenue Maximizing Tax Rate | NBER - I’m sure there’s a more ‘modern’ pdf somewhere.
Lindsey finds that about one third of the revenue lost through the tax cut was recouped through increased economic activity, which is far from revenue improving. [/quote]
I don’t have time to go through all this, but thanks for at least having something.
I suspect that 2 years after the tax cuts may not be enough, but they were for Bush 43 so, idk.
I don’t see the phrase “one third” used anywhere though, so not sure if I’m missing it or not.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The strongest states in the US have the most small businesses and the most diversity in their economy. Single industry economies cannot weather market downturns (Detroit). There is no correlation between large corporate tax cuts and economic growth and this has been stated over and over. To grow and economy you need a fertile ground for entrepeneurs and small businesses who want to bring new products, methods and innovative ideas to a market place.[/quote]
Can you provide the data that shows this correlation?
[/quote]
haha Usmccds423, you’re more likely to get called names than a source from him.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
How bout you read a book or an economics text that now dispels the Laffer Curve from the 1980s? Think about man how would cutting tax rates increase tax revenues? George Bush and both Gerald Ford hammered Reagen on this. The laffer curve posits if you cut taxes you can generate more government revenue by encouraging people to spend but the US has no federal government sales tax. [/quote]
Well for one if you cut rates AND this increases employment you’ll have more folks paying payroll tax.
I don’t really think Romney was saying something as simple as you make it sounds though.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
It’s fun how perspective works because I thought it was very close. The pension comment by Romney stuck with me. Obama tried to paint Romney as basically an evil capitalist and Romney reminded the president that his own pension invests in Chinese companies.
It was also abundantly clear Obama was given more opportunity to make his point and counter argue.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The strongest states in the US have the most small businesses and the most diversity in their economy. Single industry economies cannot weather market downturns (Detroit). There is no correlation between large corporate tax cuts and economic growth and this has been stated over and over. To grow and economy you need a fertile ground for entrepeneurs and small businesses who want to bring new products, methods and innovative ideas to a market place.[/quote]
Can you provide the data that shows this correlation?
[/quote]
haha Usmccds423, you’re more likely to get called names than a source from him.[/quote]
Eh, it never hurts to try.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
Regarding the impact of tax cuts on revenues, this paper gives a pretty good account of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts that - from my understanding - resembles what Romney is proposing.
Individual Taxpayer Response to Tax Cuts 1982-1984 with Implications forthe Revenue Maximizing Tax Rate | NBER - I’m sure there’s a more ‘modern’ pdf somewhere.
Lindsey finds that about one third of the revenue lost through the tax cut was recouped through increased economic activity, which is far from revenue improving. [/quote]
I don’t have time to go through all this, but thanks for at least having something.
I suspect that 2 years after the tax cuts may not be enough, but they were for Bush 43 so, idk.
I don’t see the phrase “one third” used anywhere though, so not sure if I’m missing it or not.[/quote]
Page 26 (in the pdf). At the end of the paragraph that starts with “A comparison…”.
Agreed, two years is a very short time to analyze the effects of tax cuts, but it is still an interesting study. If memory serves me correct Feldstein, Reagan’s economic advisor, did a follow-up in the mid-90s and found similar results. Many of the hardcore “supply-siders” from the Reagan years backed down on their claims of revenue neutral/improving tax cuts over time as the evidence for such tax cuts simply isn’t there.
The study also reports increased growth and employment, which has to be considered as well.
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]jonzy91 wrote:
Regarding the impact of tax cuts on revenues, this paper gives a pretty good account of the effects of the Reagan tax cuts that - from my understanding - resembles what Romney is proposing.
Individual Taxpayer Response to Tax Cuts 1982-1984 with Implications forthe Revenue Maximizing Tax Rate | NBER - I’m sure there’s a more ‘modern’ pdf somewhere.
Lindsey finds that about one third of the revenue lost through the tax cut was recouped through increased economic activity, which is far from revenue improving. [/quote]
I don’t have time to go through all this, but thanks for at least having something.
I suspect that 2 years after the tax cuts may not be enough, but they were for Bush 43 so, idk.
I don’t see the phrase “one third” used anywhere though, so not sure if I’m missing it or not.[/quote]
Page 26 (in the pdf). At the end of the paragraph that starts with “A comparison…”.
Agreed, two years is a very short time to analyze the effects of tax cuts, but it is still an interesting study. If memory serves me correct Feldstein, Reagan’s economic advisor, did a follow-up in the mid-90s and found similar results. Many of the hardcore “supply-siders” from the Reagan years backed down on their claims of revenue neutral/improving tax cuts over time as the evidence for such tax cuts simply isn’t there.
The study also reports increased growth and employment, which has to be considered as well. [/quote]
Just a thought…what if a tax cut was allowed, in the form of a rate reduction or a credit, to all businesses if the company could demonstrate a corresponding hire(s), would that be a smart more economically?
My first thought is what’s the incentive for business if they just break even? My guess would be the reduction/credit would have to be pretty substantial just to break even let alone for there to be an incentive to act on this plan.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
It’s fun how perspective works because I thought it was very close. The pension comment by Romney stuck with me. Obama tried to paint Romney as basically an evil capitalist and Romney reminded the president that his own pension invests in Chinese companies.
It was also abundantly clear Obama was given more opportunity to make his point and counter argue.
[/quote]
Agreed on the narrower issue of the pensions. It was good that Romney hit back. The truth is that when you can attack someone for basically anything, even the squeakiest candidate will be coming under fire. “Have you ever invested in a company outside of the US? Well then damn you!” That kind of line of attack plays well in the shallow world of the Presidential debate, but it’s not substantive unless we’re talking about huge, shady investments.
Broadly, though, I think Obama came out on top. As I said before the debate, an Obama comeback was going to be the narrative so long as the guy didn’t fall asleep on stage–and this can be chalked up to liberal bias, but I would suggest that it is the innate desire to paint the race as a nailbiter. And Libya helped him tremendously (did not by any stretch of the imagination think I would be typing those words about the President).
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less.[/quote]
Can’t agree with that at all.
Aside from the philoshical issues, when has there even been a competely neutral moderator?[/quote]
You bring up a good point. It would be nearly impossible, and as we saw last night (yes I am agreeing with you folks completely) it is very easy for a moderator to help a candidate with even the slightest push.
But, in my perfect world, we would have live, in-the-debate fact-checking. Sometimes candidates say something that is simply wrong or a lie, and that would be a good thing to catch. But far more important would be the search for things that are technically true but enormously misleading. Imagine if it were like a football game, and a candidate could toss a red flag for official review?
That’s 99% a joke, but a guy can dream.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
It’s fun how perspective works because I thought it was very close. The pension comment by Romney stuck with me. Obama tried to paint Romney as basically an evil capitalist and Romney reminded the president that his own pension invests in Chinese companies.
It was also abundantly clear Obama was given more opportunity to make his point and counter argue.
[/quote]
Agreed on the narrower issue of the pensions. It was good that Romney hit back. The truth is that when you can attack someone for basically anything, even the squeakiest candidate will be coming under fire. “Have you ever invested in a company outside of the US? Well then damn you!” That kind of line of attack plays well in the shallow world of the Presidential debate, but it’s not substantive unless we’re talking about huge, shady investments.
Broadly, though, I think Obama came out on top. As I said before the debate, an Obama comeback was going to be the narrative so long as the guy didn’t fall asleep on stage–and this can be chalked up to liberal bias, but I would suggest that it is the innate desire to paint the race as a nailbiter. And Libya helped him tremendously (did not by any stretch of the imagination think I would be typing those words about the President).[/quote]
I agree with this; although, I don’t think the Libya issue is as big a deal as some have said. The Mod has already started to back pedal a bit and at least SOME of the media has come out and said the spirit of Obama’s words and the length of time it took for his administration to qualify this event as an “act of terror” do not coincide with what he said in the Rose Garden.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
It’s fun how perspective works because I thought it was very close. The pension comment by Romney stuck with me. Obama tried to paint Romney as basically an evil capitalist and Romney reminded the president that his own pension invests in Chinese companies.
It was also abundantly clear Obama was given more opportunity to make his point and counter argue.
[/quote]
Agreed on the narrower issue of the pensions. It was good that Romney hit back. The truth is that when you can attack someone for basically anything, even the squeakiest candidate will be coming under fire. “Have you ever invested in a company outside of the US? Well then damn you!” That kind of line of attack plays well in the shallow world of the Presidential debate, but it’s not substantive unless we’re talking about huge, shady investments.
Broadly, though, I think Obama came out on top. As I said before the debate, an Obama comeback was going to be the narrative so long as the guy didn’t fall asleep on stage–and this can be chalked up to liberal bias, but I would suggest that it is the innate desire to paint the race as a nailbiter. And Libya helped him tremendously (did not by any stretch of the imagination think I would be typing those words about the President).[/quote]
I agree with this; although, I don’t think the Libya issue is as big a deal as some have said. The Mod has already started to back pedal a bit and at least SOME of the media has come out and said the spirit of Obama’s words and the length of time it took for his administration to qualify this event as an “act of terror” do not coincide with what he said in the Rose Garden. [/quote]
The problem here for Romney is that the number of people who will wait and re-formulate opinions based on the fact-checking pales in comparison to the number who made the snap judgement during the debate. No amount of backpedaling by Crowley will undo the damage she did to Romney in the heat of the moment, in my opinion. Most viewers’ judgements crystallized last night. This morning they woke up and maybe caught a couple minutes of a morning news show, but their days will not involve frequent and thorough fact-checking of the debate. Unfortunately.
Hello,
I missed the first 15 min or so of the debate, but tried to watch as unbiased and strategically as possible.
I am neither a republican, nor democrat. I do not really “like” either candidate.
As the first page predicted, the moderator and some of the questions were very very much on Obamas side.
Some of the questions were flat our irrelevant to the state of the nation. The hiring women question, was a stupid one. The assault weapons question, was also very stupid.
Obama came out with his usual grandiose talk and rebuttals. He gets style points for this, despite not having substance. That is what I expected. Romney is stuck in a bind by trying to provide substance, but dumbing it down enough for the average vote to understand. Specifically with anything regarding the economy, most people are in fact…really fucking stupid.
You cannot compare the tax rates of individuals to those of companies. I think Romney did well in this point, though he could have been more succinct, and delivered better.
He completely gaffed the woman question to almost face palm status, and nearly did it with assault weapons as well.
I thought his answer to Libya was decent, but the moderator fucked him on that one. Obama is extremely deft at creating (ugh, i hate to say it) strawman arguments out of Romney, which then leaves Romney looking like a fool trying to explain his position. Politically very saavy, and people will eat that shit up.
What I AM very glad Romney interjected with, was the Fast and Furious debacle that the Obama administration tries to sweep under the rug. There were a few other instances were he could have really hit it out of the park, but stammered instead.
One of my fundamental differences with the current president is his wording on taxes. He tried to explain the Romney tax cuts as “Costing” a certain amount. Tax cuts cost NOTHING. NOTHING. They only “cost” something if someone is led to believe the government has a claim over all of their income and CHOOSES, by some favor to give them back a portion. The only time taxes “cost” something is when government SPENDING is greater than revenue. Thus, the issue is that of government spending.
The real question should be this: What do you think is the appropriate size and scope of government involvement in your life. Should it be simply national defense, or education, healthcare, transportation, food fucking safety…etc and what is the appropriate cost and level of social externalities when compared to the private sector.
An analogy is as follows: Say you want bacon. You can get it at a mom and pop store for 4$ a package or walmart for 3. If you are fine with your patronizing only the mom and pop, then realize you are spending an extra dollar to do so.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
It’s fun how perspective works because I thought it was very close. The pension comment by Romney stuck with me. Obama tried to paint Romney as basically an evil capitalist and Romney reminded the president that his own pension invests in Chinese companies.
It was also abundantly clear Obama was given more opportunity to make his point and counter argue.
[/quote]
Agreed on the narrower issue of the pensions. It was good that Romney hit back. The truth is that when you can attack someone for basically anything, even the squeakiest candidate will be coming under fire. “Have you ever invested in a company outside of the US? Well then damn you!” That kind of line of attack plays well in the shallow world of the Presidential debate, but it’s not substantive unless we’re talking about huge, shady investments.
Broadly, though, I think Obama came out on top. As I said before the debate, an Obama comeback was going to be the narrative so long as the guy didn’t fall asleep on stage–and this can be chalked up to liberal bias, but I would suggest that it is the innate desire to paint the race as a nailbiter. And Libya helped him tremendously (did not by any stretch of the imagination think I would be typing those words about the President).[/quote]
I agree with this; although, I don’t think the Libya issue is as big a deal as some have said. The Mod has already started to back pedal a bit and at least SOME of the media has come out and said the spirit of Obama’s words and the length of time it took for his administration to qualify this event as an “act of terror” do not coincide with what he said in the Rose Garden. [/quote]
The problem here for Romney is that the number of people who will wait and re-formulate opinions based on the fact-checking pales in comparison to the number who made the snap judgement during the debate. No amount of backpedaling by Crowley will undo the damage she did to Romney in the heat of the moment, in my opinion. Most viewers’ judgements crystallized last night. This morning they woke up and maybe caught a couple minutes of a morning news show, but their days will not involve frequent and thorough fact-checking of the debate. Unfortunately.[/quote]
There’s still what 3 weeks until the election. Plenty of time for snap judgments to wear off and for people to flip flop on their vote.
If this was in the last debate I’d say it’s a bigger deal, but it seems people have already forgotten about debate 1 and people have forgotten it took the Obama administration weeks to get their story straight about Libya, but he took responsibility for the terror attack on national TV last night so everything is good in the world, right?