Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote: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.
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.
Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?
stahrgazer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:like it would have mattered to you if Romney did provide specifics?
Damn right it would have, I WANTED to be able to vote Romney!
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote: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.)
So. Summarizing.
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?
Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.
I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.
Symmetry wrote:
I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.
Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
Symmetry wrote:I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.
I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.
If Obama wanted to cut spending, he wouldn't have doubled the annual deficit. In fact, he did promise to cut it in half by the end of his first term. And he didn't have to overtly campaign on raising taxes: he already passed the largest single tax increase in history in Obamacare's mandate along with dozens of ancillary taxes used to help "pay for it".
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:
I can see how you perceive the difference, but Obama didn't run on a platform of increased taxes. He ran on a fairly moderate platform of cutting spending and letting the some parts of the Bush tax cut expire for the very wealthy.
Letting tax cuts expire = increasing taxes, and Obama repeatedly stated he'd increase taxes on the wealthy.Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.Symmetry wrote:I think you're on point in that Obama wasn't great on his specifics with spending cuts, although he was better than Romney, who just provided nothing. Still Obama did what he does best- he showed that he was pragmatic- a mix of taxes and spending cuts.
One difference is, Obama still expects Congress to do its job, and waits till he sees they absolutely will not before he makes mandates, and one of their jobs is to iron out the details of budgets; in other words, Obama wouldn't say, "we will cut x percent from x program" because he sees that as Congress's job.
And saying Romney provided nothing still misses my major beef: Romney provided nothing while claiming that nothing would lead to very specific (and massive) jobs creation. I'd leaned toward voting Romney till I caught this, and this is what made me look further into everything else which ultimately led to me realizing, between the two, Obama was the better choice for America.
Night Strike wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote:I appreciate that you want to think of this as some kind of weird binary where one guy just says "cut spending", and the other guy is "raise taxes", but that really isn't how it played out.
No, I've never said Obama only wanted to raise taxes. He wanted cuts, too, but stated very clearly that because of the mess we were in there would be more spending first. Granted that he had to spend more than he'd planned when the Bush-bailout did absolutely nothing to help and then some of his bailouts didn't help as much as was thought.
For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
Night Strike wrote:For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
AndyDufresne wrote:Maybe you and her are working off different definitions? There was a whole topic about all the nuances of conservatism a while ago I recall.
--Andy
stahrgazer wrote:Symmetry wrote: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.)
So. Summarizing.
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?
thegreekdog wrote:It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."
stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."
That's what started me looking.
As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.
Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.
I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.
thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."
That's what started me looking.
As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.
Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.
I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.
I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.
thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if Romney lied or not
stahrgazer wrote:Night Strike wrote:For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.
Night Strike wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Night Strike wrote:For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.
Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?
As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?
Tampa Bay Times wrote:We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.
Symmetry wrote:Night Strike wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Night Strike wrote:For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.
Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?
As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?
It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.Tampa Bay Times wrote:We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.
You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:Night Strike wrote:stahrgazer wrote:Night Strike wrote:For someone who claims they used to be conservative, you sure do gush lavish, unwarranted praises for Obama. Obama has never wanted to cut government spending (unless it's military); Obama cuts government spending in campaign-time rhetoric only. And the government didn't HAVE to spend any amount of dollars in bailouts. In fact, if they actually let the free market work, the only money they would have spent would have been the normal operational spending for bankruptcy courts and other administrative costs.
I don't see me "praising" Obama, but I do see me trashing a liar (Romney) here. Obama has wanted to cut spending, and did not really wish to cut military spending except for the Bush-didn't-budget war spending.
Then why did he ACTUALLY double spending and why did you still vote for him when the reason you voted for him is something he did the complete opposite of?
As for all the anti-capitalism bailouts, why do you support them as necessary when they're completely anti-free market, which you claim to believe in? Why should the government have the authority to dictate which businesses are allowed to live and which ones must close? I thought we're supposed to be equal in this nation: why do you support treating people and businesses unequally?
It looks like you got conned by the pundits NS.Tampa Bay Times wrote:We found that Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and the growth on his watch was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic was that it failed to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.
You do need to provide some evidence for the stuff you say NS. Doubled spending? Seriously?
The deficit was doubled. Actually, what he said was that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, which is what he doubled.
Metsfanmax wrote:thegreekdog wrote:stahrgazer wrote:thegreekdog wrote:It appears that, currently, your beef with Romney is that he said the words "12 million jobs."
That's what started me looking.
As to your accusation that I keep changing...Nope. I just didn't give every detail of every reason right away.
Romney's claim of 12 million jobs without having analyzed his numbers was a clear sign to me that he was lying just to get elected, and had no clear plan. It started me looking into other claims, and I found almost all of them equally false or facts-twisting.
I don't like all of Obama's policies, but they make more sense than trusting in Romney's lies.
I think you'll find after a period of time following politics that most, if not all, politicians lie to get elected. I'm not sure if Romney lied or not, but his plan made as much sense as the president's plan. As I indicated above (and in the portion that you did not quote), the president made at least one (and probably more if I cared to check) claim that was patently ridiculous. As I indicated above a few posts ago, it appears that you fell for the president's rhetoric (which is fine, lots of people did). And a viable alternative was certainly not Mitt Romney.
Yes, Gary Johnson was the viable alternative.
/sarcasm
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if Romney lied or not
This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure if Romney lied or not
This seems to have been one of his main problems, and conveniently, also a problem with the pundits supporting him.
Did you think it was a main problem for the president and the pundits supporting him?
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap