What exactly is the point of revenue neutral

i mean my point was just that it's bs to call "mitt promised he wouldn't!!" a 'fact-check.' the last line from the part i quoted is also a complete mischaracterization by romney (pres has NOT been saying romney will lower taxes by 5 million, just that romney has provided no details on how he'll acheive revenue neutrality while adding 5T to the deficit)

also the "kill big bird" item to get from 473.5B to 474B is just huge, thank you werthless.

pacino wrote:What exactly is the point of revenue neutral

Talking point, china, etc.

I'd love to get rid of the deduction for charitable contributions to religious organizations altogether. If we're going to subsidize how people choose to spend their Sundays, then I should be able to deduct the NFL Sunday Ticket, beer, and chicken wings.

kimbatiste wrote:I'd love to get rid of the deduction for charitable contributions to religious organizations altogether. If we're going to subsidize how people choose to spend their Sundays, then I should be able to deduct the NFL Sunday Ticket, beer, and chicken wings.

You have my vote if you can expand this to cover Saturdays and any day during the Bowl season.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:ok thanks mitt romney

I spend all my time on here rebutting mischaracterizations of his plan that I find myself identifying with it. Now I'm likely to vote for him, as opposed to Gary Johnson. Thanks for creating a Romney voter, everyone!

but your rebuttals make it clear romney is a lying sack of crap, so everyone wins & no one's surprised

Wait, revenue neutral means it brings in the same amount of money? I'm confused.

Romney is probably the favorite at this point.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Romney is probably the favorite at this point.

Liberals are such pussies.

Unless you're being facetious, then carry on.

CalvinBall wrote:Wait, revenue neutral means it brings in the same amount of money? I'm confused.

Yes, that's what it means.

Now, you might ask yourself: "Why go to the trouble?" As best I could tell from the debate (and I've no doubt I'll be corrected if I'm mistaken), Mitt said something about it helping small businesses. I don't believe that for a minute. The fact is that cutting out the deductions in question will hurt the middle class disproportionately.

A 20% cut in taxes doesn't mean nearly as much to someone making $100,000 as it does to someone making $1MM. And, although cutting out things like the home mortgage deduction could well make up for a lot of the revenue lost from the tax cut from the middle class, cutting those deductions means far less to the wealthy since, for example, the home mortgage interest deduction is already phased out at higher incomes. Plus, if as Mitt has said, he's also going to get rid of the AMT, it will be a real boon to high earners. Most people don't have a clue what the AMT is, so they don't understand what a big deal it can be to high earners.

@TNC: Romney may now well be the popular vote favorite, but it's hard to see how he could be the electoral college favorite at the moment.

TBF night man is also a drama queen

Hasn't Mitt said that his revenue neutrality is all assuming that trickle down economics work and that the economy will start pumping at an increased rate the moment he's elected?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Hasn't Mitt said that his revenue neutrality is all assuming that trickle down economics rock and that the economy will start pumping the moment he's elected?

That is also my understanding.

Look, in fairness to Romney, there are likely dozens of areas of the tax code he could do away with that might get him where he wants to go. Not only that but there is the issue of getting any changes through Congress. I get that. Still, "cut taxes 20% and pay for it with reduced deductions and closed loopholes" is not enough of an answer. You have to give us an idea of where you are going. If eliminating the mortgage deduction is legitimately on the table, we have a right to know that.

I also found this to be interesting:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/1 ... -timeline/

The devil is in the details--limiting charitable deductions probably doesn't hurt the middle class much, if at all. Changing the mortgage interest deduction may hurt some middle income voters, but it may not, depending on the details--if the standard deduction is kept then only homeowners who are paying a certain amount of interest will be affected. People who don't owe a lot on their homes may not be paying enough in interest to itemize their deductions.

Eliminating deductions and offsetting that with a reduction in rates in general may make economic sense. But politically, it's going to be impossible to really pull off. Every deduction has a dedicated group of well funded lobbyists who will fight to the death to keep those deductions in place.

CalvinBall wrote:Wait, revenue neutral means it brings in the same amount of money? I'm confused.

not sure if serious... the answer is yes.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Romney is probably the favorite at this point.

the favorite what?

td11 wrote:i mean my point was just that it's bs to call "mitt promised he wouldn't!!" a 'fact-check.' the last line from the part i quoted is also a complete mischaracterization by romney (pres has NOT been saying romney will lower taxes by 5 million, just that romney has provided no details on how he'll acheive revenue neutrality while adding 5T to the deficit)

also the "kill big bird" item to get from 473.5B to 474B is just huge, thank you werthless.

I agree on the factcheck item, but there are many that dont understand what Romney is proposing. The nuance from Obama's response is being lost by Obama supporters.

The overreaction wrt Big Bird is exactly why Romney is sharing principles, not proposals. People agree on principle that we need a simplified tax code with fewer carveouts. Idiots on both sides of the aisle get hysterical if you actually mention a few that you'd leave out.

"Oh, you dont care about homeowners/kids/charities/religion/PBS! You monster!"

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Romney is probably the favorite at this point.

How much money have you placed on Romney? I recommend doing so, if you actually believe he is the favorite.