GreecePwns wrote:I think TGD's point is that you could say the same exact thing about Obama's plan, and stahrgazer is arguing otherwise without providing much proof to support the argument.
That's fair enough- I didn't read far back enough in the conversation. I guess my point stands, but with that caveat. Cheers.
Actually, it's an unfair assessment of my point. The difference is, Romney tried to be very specific about promises for jobs, which is an outright Lie BECAUSE he didn't have the numbers to analyze to make the claim.
Symmetry wrote:Wasn't part of Romney's problem that he was vague about what he would cut? Surely part of his problem was that his plan's details didn't amount to much more than, as you say "various deductions, credits, and other tax benefits". I'm not sure that makes sense fiscally (I'm not a tax attorney) without details.
My bigger problem with Romney is that Romney didn't have numbers to back up a specific
claim of jobs he'd create. He said repeatedly his plan would create 12 million jobs, an outright LIE
if he did not have the specific numbers to back them up, and he didn't. We know from him that he didn't because in a series of interviews he kept suggesting the interviewer pick numbers, and tossed out about 7 choices.
There are those on here saying 12 million jobs will be created anyway, maybe so. That would mean that with Romney's "plan" we'd have 24 million jobs, if his "plan" was to create 12 million jobs in and of itself, as he claimed, a specific number, WITHOUT the specific analyses to back up that very specific claim.
While Obama may be vague about his plan in public, his numbers are in his budget and he has not used his vagueness to claim to the public that his plan will result in a specific number of jobs created.
There's quite a difference between being vague and saying this will vaguely help (Obama), versus being vague, without analysis, yet being specific in claiming EXACTLY how many jobs this vague, no-numbers plan will create (Romney). IF ROMNEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STATE PRECISELY WHERE THE NEW DEDUCTION THRESHOLD NEEDED TO BE TO GENERATE THE 12 MILLION JOBS HE KEPT CLAIMING HE'D CREATE. And, without those numbers, we know he did NOT do an analysis and thus we know he lied about "12 million jobs" just because it sounded good.
If Romney'd remained vague about precisely how much it would help, as Obama has, publicly, they'd be almost even; in both cases, they cannot really predict because in both cases, they are still relying on some sector of public patriotism - at least, I wouldn't be calling Romney an outright LIAR over it. Still, I'd give Obama's plan 'the edge' because Obama's plan directs incentives at job creation, "You want this deduction? Create some U.S. jobs and you got it!" (We've seen in the past 2 decades that giving broad-base deductions and hoping hasn't quite cut the mustard as far as US jobs; companies have pretty much said, 'thank you very much' and invest elsewhere anyway - and that's what Obama means when he's said Romney's plan would be doing the same old thing that got us into the mess.)
a) Obama's public plan vaguely states, "If I increase taxes on the rich, and offer tax deductions to business that create jobs within the United States, this will help the economy and the country."
b) Romeny's public plan vaguely states, "let's pick a lower tax for everyone, especially the wealthy, while at the same time we put limits on deductions folks can take, to some unspecified limit, pick a number, any number; and this will create 12 MILLION NEW JOBS."
I happen to believe a) more than b) because a) targets job creation for the deductions while b) does more of the same that has not been successful AND is vague about the numbers while trying to claim a very specific number of jobs it would create.Can you see the difference yet?