Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I've said this before, but I really, really don't get why the top rate kicks in at $250k. A decent compromise I think would be to leave the rate at the current 35% up to a million, push it to 39% there, and set another rate (43%) that kicks in at $4m.

Do that, end the vile carried interest dedication, phase in some means testing for Medicare, push the SS start age back for white-collar workers like me, strengthen the IPAB and we're probably done.

And we're still running a huge deficit. How is that "probably done?" Did you estimate the deficit based on what you said? It wouldnt surprise me if it was still close to $1trillion/year. For someone who was quite aggressive in holding Romney's feet to the fire with respect to closing the deficit, you're amazingly cavalier with your own recommendation for what Obama should do.

Even by your usual smug standards, this is an seriously dickish post. "Amazingly cavalier"? Do I have to show my work or you fail me on the quiz, professor? It's a freaking internet discussion. What's wrong with you?

I was talking about parameters. If you want to fill in the specifics--the pace of phasing in Medicare means testing, how much power to give the IPAB and how quickly to give it to them (DEATH PANELS!), when and for whom to raise the SS age--go right ahead. I'll tell you when you're wrong.

mozartpc27 wrote:[tions with unemployment at 7.7%. Granted, in the run up to his re-election, jobs had been getting added at a truly heroic rate, but the point is Obama being re-elected with unemployment at 7.9% and on a steady, if somewhat slow, downward trajectory does not really constitute some shocking "upset" that requires some extraordinary explanation or that underwrites a conclusion that Romney and the Republicans fumbled an easy touchdown.

Hey, take it to the PSU thread

Werthless wrote:

bleh wrote:And as a friendly reminder

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study

I probably didn't read this as closely as you, but can you explain this:

A rise in the capital gains top rate could increase
investment because of reduced risk.

This seems ludicrous on its face, that higher cap gains rates increase investment because it reduces the variability of the returns. I was skimming through the study when I saw this, and I have no idea how anyone can type such a thing with a straight face (unless I'm misinterpreting at this late hour).

That confusion aside, it's clear to many people that follow this stuff closely that the highest economic growth in the last 50 years or so has occurred in Democratic administrations. Most of us have probably seen the charts. We're also aware that the pace of economic growth has been slowly declining since the 1950s (obviously in a cyclical manner, with the business cycles). I'm not exactly sure what a "study" of these data was supposed to find, considering that the study found that all of these relationships were not statistically significant. After all, there are numerous international studies with more robust data that suggest that low government spending, stable political systems devoid of market interruptions, existence of financial stock markets, and low, steady inflation are all statistically significant drivers of economic growth. My first google hit shows this. Or this. And this.

Basically, this study's findings did nothing to "debunk conservative economic theory." But I'm interested in hearing why you (or others) think otherwise.

the reason the CRS study has gotten attention is its pages given to the relationship of tax rates and job creation.

I only read the abstracts, but I'm not seeing where your international studies get around to that relationship. at all.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I've said this before, but I really, really don't get why the top rate kicks in at $250k. A decent compromise I think would be to leave the rate at the current 35% up to a million, push it to 39% there, and set another rate (43%) that kicks in at $4m.

Do that, end the vile carried interest dedication, phase in some means testing for Medicare, push the SS start age back for white-collar workers like me, strengthen the IPAB and we're probably done.

And we're still running a huge deficit. How is that "probably done?" Did you estimate the deficit based on what you said? It wouldnt surprise me if it was still close to $1trillion/year. For someone who was quite aggressive in holding Romney's feet to the fire with respect to closing the deficit, you're amazingly cavalier with your own recommendation for what Obama should do.

Even by your usual smug standards, this is an seriously dickish post. "Amazingly cavalier"? Do I have to show my work or you fail me on the quiz, professor? It's a freaking internet discussion. What's wrong with you?

I was talking about parameters. If you want to fill in the specifics--the pace of phasing in Medicare means testing, how much power to give the IPAB and how quickly to give it to them (DEATH PANELS!), when and for whom to raise the SS age--go right ahead. I'll tell you when you're wrong.

I believe you sent something like this around: http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ You challenged Republicans on this board to come up with something that actually comes close to closing the deficit. And I gave you what I would do to close it.

While my post above was more dickish toward you than I intended, your "proposal" is exactly the kind of proposal that you have criticized Romney for proposing... let's reduce foreign aid and public funding for PBS, means test social security, and simplify the tax code in such a way that the rich still pay at least the same proportion of taxes. The thing is, I agree with your ideas, but it's hilarious that you consider that as all we need to do. That closes the deficit about 20%. I guarantee that if Romney was elected, you'd consider such an outcome a travesty, sham, and huge lie to the American people.

I wonder why when everyone was all "solyndra this and solyndra that" no one raised the fact that we dump a lot more tax dollars supporting trying to turn corn into motor fuel, which has been shown to be an utter failure.

TenuredVulture wrote:I wonder why when everyone was all "solyndra this and solyndra that" no one raised the fact that we dump a lot more tax dollars supporting trying to turn corn into motor fuel, which has been shown to be an utter failure.

maybe these 2 things in combination had something to do with it: a) timing of the dustup b) lots of corn is grown in Iowa (and Illinois too)

TenuredVulture wrote:I wonder why when everyone was all "solyndra this and solyndra that" no one raised the fact that we dump a lot more tax dollars supporting trying to turn corn into motor fuel, which has been shown to be an utter failure.

You're right, it's a failure. It's silly for the government to get involved in either.

Romney and Obama probably didn't mention it because it doesnt poll well, since people don't understand there is corn in their gasoline.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I've said this before, but I really, really don't get why the top rate kicks in at $250k. A decent compromise I think would be to leave the rate at the current 35% up to a million, push it to 39% there, and set another rate (43%) that kicks in at $4m.

Do that, end the vile carried interest dedication, phase in some means testing for Medicare, push the SS start age back for white-collar workers like me, strengthen the IPAB and we're probably done.

And we're still running a huge deficit. How is that "probably done?" Did you estimate the deficit based on what you said? It wouldnt surprise me if it was still close to $1trillion/year. For someone who was quite aggressive in holding Romney's feet to the fire with respect to closing the deficit, you're amazingly cavalier with your own recommendation for what Obama should do.

Even by your usual smug standards, this is an seriously dickish post. "Amazingly cavalier"? Do I have to show my work or you fail me on the quiz, professor? It's a freaking internet discussion. What's wrong with you?

I was talking about parameters. If you want to fill in the specifics--the pace of phasing in Medicare means testing, how much power to give the IPAB and how quickly to give it to them (DEATH PANELS!), when and for whom to raise the SS age--go right ahead. I'll tell you when you're wrong.

I believe you sent something like this around: http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ You challenged Republicans on this board to come up with something that actually comes close to closing the deficit. And I gave you what I would do to close it.

While my post above was more dickish toward you than I intended, your "proposal" is exactly the kind of proposal that you have criticized Romney for proposing... let's reduce foreign aid and public funding for PBS, means test social security, and simplify the tax code in such a way that the rich still pay at least the same proportion of taxes. The thing is, I agree with your ideas, but it's hilarious that you consider that as all we need to do. That closes the deficit about 20%. I guarantee that if Romney was elected, you'd consider such an outcome a travesty, sham, and huge lie to the American people.

1) Fairly sure I didn't send that, or at least I don't recall doing so (which isn't the same thing), and "challenging Republicans on this board" isn't really my sort of thing anyway. You and I once did have an exchange about deficit reduction that I recall, in which we both agreed with a framework of about 2.5 dollars in cuts for every dollar in new revenues (I might now suggest 2-1 is more appropriate, given Obama's win, but reasonable people can differ).

2) What's "hilarious" is that you're comparing the need for specifics and clarity from an obviously half-assed two-sentence post on an internet site to same from the presidential nominee of a major party, running more or less explicitly on his budgetary/managerial chops.

2.1) And my "proposal" is *still* more specific than Romney's. Did he ever say anything about Social Security, or Medicare other than that he'd restore the $718 billion giveaway to inefficient providers that Obama cruelly seized to provide actual coverage to people? I know Ryan did, but Mitt was at such pains to distance himself from Ryan's budget.

2.2) And to the extent he had a proposal, if it was to be taken seriously--admittedly depending which version you chose to believe, which itself might have been driven by the lunar cycle and/or which wealthy contributor he'd last spoken with--he either would have increased the deficit by trillions or closed it by raising taxes on middle- and working-class Americans.

To summarize, you need to calm down. If it helps, I promise you that if I'm ever a candidate for high office, I'll clear all my policy proposals with you for adequate specificity. Ok?

There were nine precincts in Cleveland where Romney received zero votes, the largest of which gave Obama 542 votes.

hmmmm

complete game shutout

jerseyhoya wrote:There were nine precincts in Cleveland where Romney received zero votes, the largest of which gave Obama 542 votes.

and some people insist voter suppression is a myth

Cleveland 2012 : Moscow 1982

Meanwhile, does this thread title make anyone else think of old friend Cliff Pollitte?

jerseyhoya wrote:There were nine precincts in Cleveland where Romney received zero votes, the largest of which gave Obama 542 votes.

big pimpin

More like big segregation

pacino wrote:More like big segregation

Precisely. Name one reason that Romney gave poor minorities to consider voting for him.

I'll wait.

I meant the hood itself. Sad times how divided we remain.

He was in favor of universal health care before he was against it.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:More like big segregation

Precisely. Name one reason that Romney gave poor minorities to consider voting for him.

I'll wait.

School choice