Apparently Romney demanded years of tax returns from his VP candidates.

Pretty hypocritical of him.

8/12/2012 1:56:45 PM

More like... he isn't running the show.
Someone else picked his VP for him.

8/12/2012 2:02:33 PM

Mitt Romney's 2010 tax rate under the Ryan plan: 0.82%

8/13/2012 11:53:58 AM

Quote :

""I know that people around the world who are always critical of America … say our greatest days are in the past. Baloney," Romney declared. "We just won more Olympic medals than any other nation on earth. We also just landed on Mars and took a good look at what's going on there.""

--Mitt Romney

8/13/2012 1:13:07 PM

^ Speaking of our glory days, I don't understand the argument over the economy. Just go back to taxing the wealthy like they were taxed before Reagan. What's the big fuss all about?

8/13/2012 2:15:04 PM

Just so we can be very clear here...

I want to know exactly what you think would happen if we imposed something like France's Hollande's 75% tax on incomes over 1 million dollars (euros in his case).

You seem to think this is the magic cure all, no? Let's hear about all the unicorns that will be birthed.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 2:22 PM. Reason : -]

8/13/2012 2:22:36 PM

Grover Norquist. Look him up.

^ He stated his exact position, why are you throwing in hypothetical strawmans, troll? You're fucking third rate.

[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

8/13/2012 2:22:53 PM

The economy directly before Reagan is something we should shoot for then?

8/13/2012 2:27:46 PM

Quote :

"I want to know exactly what you think would happen if we imposed something like France's Hollande's 75% tax on incomes over 1 million dollars (euros in his case)."

The top income tax rate was between 70% and 90% from 1950 to 1980, for incomes over 200k, which was pretty much the most prosperous period in American history. Just sayin'.

As for what the effects might be:

Some of the uber-rich folks might move away, removing competition and thus barriers of entry to small businesses. I see nothing wrong with this, it spreads out eggs out among more baskets and avoids "too big to fail" situations where the entire country has a productive capacity invested in a tiny group of oligarchical mega-corporations.

Those rich folks that remain might start reinvesting larger portions of their income into the company rather than fork it over to the government. That's assuming they don't already funnel their money to off-shore accounts. This reinvestment, which could go into upgrading, R&D, hiring, or other improvements, is also a good thing.

As for those who simply keep getting income and simply pay the higher taxes: It'd inch up tax revenues a bit, not astoundingly, but that money could go to transfers or deficit reduction, doesn't really matter compared to the effects above as long as it's so easy to off-shore and/or write-off such vast sums of wealth, plus the tiny capital gains tax through which most of the mega-rich get their money anyway. Still, the effects above that might better pluralize the economy and competitively benefit smaller businesses would be a good thing imo. Right now small businesses are in a really bad boat as long as they're competing with the kind of trans-national uber-rich businessmen they do now, with all the economies of scale and global resource pool access that level of wealth entails.

Quote :

"The economy directly before Reagan is something we should shoot for then?"

Not quite "directly before", but there were 3 whole decades prior to Reagan with >70% top marginal tax rates, and most of those decades were pretty awesome for the vast majority of working people.



That divergence in the early 70's happened just as computers, finance capital, and globalization were beginning to take off, three things that are vastly more cost-effective for the super-rich as compared to small businesses. The technological conditions of the economy change over time, it's not surprising that models of wealth redistribution (all taxation and transfer systems) should have to change with them to maintain a broadly competitive market.


[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 2:34:52 PM

I'm glad you actually took the time to organize your thoughts into something easy to read/understand.

Quote :

"It'd inch up tax revenues a bit, not astoundingly, but that money could go to transfers or deficit reduction, doesn't really matter compared to the effects above as long as it's so easy to off-shore and/or write-off such vast sums of wealth, plus the tiny capital gains tax through which most of the mega-rich get their money anyway."

This bothers me however, as I do not understand why you would "rock the boat" (as they say) for such a trivial increase? In the meantime you're willing to risk all the uncertainty/market upheaval for a simple victory in fairness? I mean I can completely understand that, but why not go after capital gains as well? Or did you just leave that out...

What is your position on budget cuts since we now know where you are on revenue increases?

8/13/2012 2:50:03 PM

Quote :

"This bothers me however, as I do not understand why you would "rock the boat" (as they say) for such a trivial increase? In the meantime you're willing to risk all the uncertainty/market upheaval for a simple victory in fairness? I mean I can completely understand that, but why not go after capital gains as well? Or did you just leave that out..."

I think the "rocking of the boat" is necessary because the economy as-is is skewed towards the already-wealthy. Without the rocking occurring sooner or later we're just going to see more and more of production being locked up in a smaller and smaller group of corporations. That's how "too big to fail" occurs, and it also locks up profits in the hands of fewer individuals. 50 small businesses whose owners earn 100k are a year are going to circulate a lot more money back into the economy than 1 large business whose owner earns 5 million. It'll also be a lot more stable in times of economic crisis than having our whole apparatus sitting atop just a handful of firms: 1 company laying off 50,000 workers is a lot more likely than 50 companies simultaneously laying off 1,000.

And yeah, I'd love to go after capital gains too, but in a progressive way, not a flat rate. Again, to try and make things fairer for small businesses and the middle class.

Quote :

"What is your position on budget cuts since we now know where you are on revenue increases?"

I think we should increase spending now to drive more money that actually circulates into the economy. From the perspective of a business, a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from the government or from a private individual. That means that a cut in government spending constitutes to them a drop in demand.

Right now interest rates are holding at near zero, and the dollar is still immensely strong on the international market because every other country (Including China) is hitting serious economic hurdles. Given those conditions, there couldn't possibly be a better time for deficit spending than the present.

If we can pump money into the middle and lower classes through (a serious) stimulus, they can spend it, driving up demand and thus hiring. If we can finally get the GDP growing at a good clip again, we can print money to pay off debts. Because of growing GDP, the resulting inflation wont be severe, as that increased money supply will be chasing an increased volume of goods and services. Even if the inflation does get bad, it'll only make our debts easier to pay (Inflation is always a good thing for debtors).

Ideally, we wait until we're economically recovered to institute austerity and try to get a surplus. It's a lot more reasonable to cut welfare, for instance, when the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful. People in that case have no excuse not to work. However, when you cut welfare in a downtime, people who couldn't work anyway can't spend welfare dollars either, so all you've accomplished is a cut in consumer demand at a time when it's most needed.

Now, since I know all that Keynesian gobbledeegook will just enrage you, here's my more moderate stance:

The Democrats need to own up to their agenda that government is good and can be helpful, but in order to that they also need to be build a reputation of not being a spendthrifts. It's very difficult to do both of those at the same time. They need to be open and vocally trying to trim fat and make the government more efficient ALL THE TIME, in a way that makes the GOP's "hack and slash" spending cuts look sloppy, savage and ham-fisted (which they are).

As far as the GOP goes, nobody's going to take them seriously on deficit reduction until they drop the insistence on World Empire levels of military spending. Barring that, when they do propose reductions they need to be a little more surgical about it. Right now their attitude seems to be "Cut this program by XX%, if that breaks the program entirely then so be it, if that happens then next year we'll try to defund it entirely."

Really what I'd like to see is both parties agree "Government is good, government spending is good, but must be efficient and tightly monitored." but lately it seems that the GOP cries "Government bad, spending bad." and the Dems just respond with "No, government good, spending good."



[Edited on August 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2012 3:07:28 PM

I want to add:

Some might say "Well, if you want more money circulating, just cut taxes as you cut spending." which would work except for the fact that, as so many conservatives know, the top 10% pays 71% of income taxes. The top 10% also, unfortunately, tends to spend a lower proportion of their income than the bottom 90%. Government spending, however, usually redistributes money to the lower and middle class, who spend a larger proportion of their income. That's why it's not as simple as "Tax cuts, spending, yada yada, it's just moving money around, makes no difference."

The rich invest more of their money than they spend. If there isn't consumer demand, they wont invest, and the money just sits in their pockets or in low-yield investments. If, however, the government taxes that money and gives it to the poor and middle class, they almost certainly will spend it. So, simply by moving the money from one hand to another, you increase aggregate demand, which will compel the rich to invest more, jumpstarting the economy. They wont do it out of charity, only for profit, but unfortunately their own frugality on the large-scale hinders the profitability of investments.

8/13/2012 3:17:18 PM

Quote :

"The Democrats need to own up to their agenda that government is good and can be helpful, but in order to that they also need to be build a reputation of not being a spendthrifts. It's very difficult to do both of those at the same time. They need to be open and vocally trying to trim fat and make the government more efficient ALL THE TIME, in a way that makes the GOP's "hack and slash" spending cuts look sloppy, savage and ham-fisted (which they are). As far as the GOP goes, nobody's going to take them seriously on deficit reduction until they drop the insistence on World Empire levels of military spending. Barring that, when they do propose reductions they need to be a little more surgical about it. Right now their attitude seems to be "Cut this program by XX%, if that breaks the program entirely then so be it, if that happens then next year we'll try to defund it entirely." Really what I'd like to see is both parties agree "Government is good, government spending is good, but must be efficient and tightly monitored." but lately it seems that the GOP cries "Government bad, spending bad." and the Dems just respond with "No, government good, spending good.""

Completely agree with all of this.

8/13/2012 3:35:12 PM

I think most people do, but the pundits and so forth benefit monetarily from hyperbole and division, and most national discussion is just composed of people repeating what their favorite pundit said most recently, both sides of the aisle.

8/13/2012 3:36:49 PM

Quote :

"Right now interest rates are holding at near zero, and the dollar is still immensely strong on the international market because every other country (Including China) is hitting serious economic hurdles. Given those conditions, there couldn't possibly be a better time for deficit spending than the present."

But deficit spending does not create money. All it does is transfer money from bond buyers to government workers. Per the rules there is nothing Congress can do to create money, just move it around. Only the federal reserve can create money, and it doesn't need Congress' help to do it. They can print money and buy whatever they want with it, anything from corporate bonds to real-estate in Detroit. And this would be actual money creation, not just a transfer of existing money.

8/13/2012 5:46:49 PM

The Fed is just as interested in the US paying debts in the long term as Congress is, infowars.com narratives of conspiratorial centuries-long global debt slavery notwithstanding.

And, yes, for all practical purposes, deficit spending creates money, although it's more like money that was temporarily destroyed. When you transfer money from someone who is hoarding it to someone who who will spend it, that is functionally the same as printing it as far as economic signalling and circulation go.

The "government workers" which also includes all private contractors and recipients of any welfare, subsidies, and tax breaks or benefits (Including the EIC and the mortgage tax deduction), are only the first persons to hold that money. They spend it on shit like groceries, electronics and rent, just like everyone else. So while I know you hate all things Keynesian, at least try to get it right and not make silly statements like "It's just a transfer to government workers."

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/14/2012 9:41:16 AM

I'm loving the NEA's outrage that Romney had the nerve to say that a kid who makes the honor roll ultimately deserves the credit for making the honor roll. The NEA is saying that Romney was denigrating all other professions remotely related to education by making such a statement. jesus, folks

8/14/2012 8:12:41 PM

^ aaronburrito, it is because the fact that Romney said those words that he will lose the election. Its over folks. VOTE OBAMA 2012. DEATH TO THE REPUBTARDS!

< /sarcasm in the sarcastic box>

[Edited on August 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM. Reason : oh my]

8/14/2012 8:30:25 PM

Seems like early 2000s Romney wouldn't be that bad of a candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : please embed]

8/16/2012 12:11:23 PM

The problem with Romney is nobody knows what the fuck he truly believes.

If you go only on his previous record as governor in Mass., it doesn't seem _that_ bad. He's pretty much a white, Mormon Obama.

but, if he's elected, he owes a lot of people a lot of favors, and he at least has overpaid lip service to the extremes of the GOP.

8/16/2012 2:00:12 PM

^
http://www.upworthy.com/barack-obama-should-hire-this-guy-to-attack-mitt-romney?g=5&c=bl3

8/20/2012 1:39:09 PM

http://m.gawker.com/5937066/whoops-gop-throwing-obama+bashing-we-built-it-convention-party-inside-arena-built-with-government-dollars

The republicans are going off the deep end.

8/22/2012 7:43:29 PM

Quote :

"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this was the place that we were born and raised" "

oooooooooooooooooooooh Mittens

8/24/2012 12:49:42 PM

Ugh, just pandering to the lowest common denominator in the country. Why would he even stoop to that level. Awful but when you have morons who only watch news from one source this childish bs resonates.

8/24/2012 1:43:35 PM

they all pander, but he's the ultimate panderer

8/24/2012 1:45:40 PM

Quote :

"Why would he even stoop to that level."

simple. he simply says whatever anyone wants him to say at any point in time. this is so far beyond pandering. he's just shy of literally stepping up to the mic and asking the audience what they want him to say

8/24/2012 1:50:14 PM

It really does seem like Romney doesn't have anyone in his ear telling him what he should and shouldn't say. His campaign strategists have completely failed him. How else can you explain saying shit like this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57499636-503544/romney-big-business-is-doing-fine/

Quote :

"Mitt Romney told a group of donors on Thursday night that "big business is doing fine in many places," due to its ability to better deal with regulations and because large companies can utilize "low tax havens around the world.""

Everything he's done since the Ryan pick has made no sense. The only way Romney wins this election is by making it a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy the last 4 years. It's literally the only issue where Romney polls even or better than Obama.

Instead they are talking about Medicare, abortions, and now bringing up tax evasion? What? And cracking birther jokes isn't exactly going to close the likability gap. Now, I'm expecting a carpet bombing of negative ads after the RNC, which will bring down Obama's likability, but nothing Romney is personally saying or doing is helping his case. Like a typical business man, he thinks money and gaming the system (voter ID) is all he need to win. The debates will be a glorious spectacle.

8/24/2012 2:24:38 PM

Indeed they shall.

8/24/2012 8:26:21 PM

http://youtu.be/cQvszfnOSY8

8/25/2012 2:33:11 AM

I don't wanna be too weird/conspiracyish, but it looks like the man is taking a dive.

I wonder if it's all rigged...like a reality TV show or something: politicians get together and just script out what's going to happen and who gets what and when. Maybe they're actually really good at working together and figuring things out, and politics is all one big soap opera they put on for us. They probably thought they were so hilarious when they devised the concept for the Weiner penis pics episode.

8/25/2012 4:34:38 AM

i think he's just getting worn out trying to suppress his true character, and it's starting to leak out.

8/25/2012 3:31:29 PM

RAWR

8/25/2012 3:41:35 PM

Quote :

"i think he's just getting worn out trying to suppress his true character, and it's starting to leak out."

Wait...what thread is this?

8/25/2012 11:06:08 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/25/uygur-did-david-koch-buy-paul-ryan-the-vp-slot/

8/26/2012 3:51:32 AM

It looks like a bunch of NCSU economists are on the list of economists that support Romney.
http://economistsforromney.com/

Here's the full list
Barry Goodwin
Dale Hoover
John Seater
Walter Thurman
Walter Wessels
Michael Wohlgenant

8/29/2012 12:08:48 AM

^ wow there is a lot of double speak on that page

8/29/2012 12:14:37 AM

It's very hard to be "for Romney" since it isn't clear what he would actually do if he was elected.

I was annoyed when the term "flip flop" was coined. I thought it was childish.

But he really has flip flopped soooo many times that there's no telling what he believes or what he thinks should be done. He could and should fix that by saying, "once and for all," what he thinks.

And I know this is going to sound crazy, but I think Mitt Romney may be dumb. He has all those degrees and is supposedly super awesome at business, but the more we hear from him, the more dumb he sounds. People say he's awkward or wooden or whatever, but I think the man may actually be dumb in some way.

8/29/2012 1:17:10 AM

I hold economists in the lowest regard among so-called "intellectuals."

8/29/2012 5:58:40 AM

^^ what did you hear from him that sounded dumb?

8/29/2012 10:07:46 AM

Its hilarious that when Romney changes his view he is flip-flopping, but when Obama changes his mind his "views have evolved."

8/29/2012 10:27:25 AM

That's because in most cases Romney's views tend to devolve.

[Edited on August 29, 2012 at 11:54 AM. Reason : unevolve?]

8/29/2012 11:53:10 AM

^thats your opinion

^^^^ I hold posters with Pot references in User Names even lower than so-called "intellectuals"

8/29/2012 11:58:09 AM

^^^ you're referring to a single auxiliary issue.

^ ad hom. If you spent more time in TSB you would realize that I am one of the most reputable posters here.

8/29/2012 3:30:23 PM

Having a wolf reference is far more intellectual. I bet you wear this shirt too:

8/29/2012 3:47:15 PM

The one I have has 4 wolves on it.

8/29/2012 4:09:55 PM

MITT ROMNEY IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF TEH US OF A!

http://usa-wethepeople.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

8/29/2012 6:00:28 PM

Quote :

"If you spent more time in TSB you would realize that I am one of the most reputable posters here."

8/29/2012 6:27:16 PM

Quote :

"IMStoned420: If you spent more time in TSB you would realize that I am one of the most reputable posters here."

8/29/2012 8:52:46 PM

I don't think I want to be reputable on tww.

8/29/2012 9:06:36 PM

^^ Actually made me laugh...and not at him.

8/29/2012 9:09:03 PM