Can someone explain Romny's tax plan?

Mithros said:

It depends how you measure it. Obama didn't increase the deficit to 1.4 Trillion. The US fiscal year is October 1-September 1. That means the 2009 budget was already set and in place for almost 5 months when Obama took office. Furthermore, Obama moved the cost of the wars from emergency measures to actual budgetary items. That means that the deficits included the real long term costs of the war.

So Obama did lower the deficit between 300-400 Billion dollars which is a near record amount in dollars, but much less impressive number in percentage.

It's a fair talking point, but it's not a significant accomplishment.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

Except that for FY2009, most of the appropriations bills werent passed until after Obama took office. And the wars still counted against spending, whether they were emergency funding or not. Outlays are outlays, and the deficit number measures revenue - outlays. Then theres the additional programs that Obama specifically signed, that were not part of the budget. The stimulus, auto bailout, etc.

Some things are indeed shared by Bush and Obama in 2009. TARP for example.

Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2009 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Click to expand...

Mithros said:

I agree. But I wouldn't put any of the blame for TARP or Fredie and Fannie bailouts on Obama. Those are the long term costs of financial deregulation going back 30+ years. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush all deserve blame for that.

Sure, you can blame Obama for about 200Billion in 09 for the stimulus bill, but even that has mostly paid for itself in tax revenue from a non-destroyed economy.

I'm not going to say that Obama's been perfect, but he's been pretty good considering what he's had to deal with.

Click to expand...

jonny5 said:

Thats subjective. Objective is that he approved spending of 1.4 trillion more than we had. And hes done little to nothing about it. He has not vetoed spending bills. He has not curbed spending within executive branch depts. Hes proposed raising taxes a tiny bit, and proposed increasing spending a lot. His most recent budget proposed increasing spending TO 5.8 trillion over 10 years, and increasing the debt by 7 trillion. I simply can not see a way to spin it that this is in any way 'pretty good'.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

And if we cant to get back on the topic of Romney, hes almost as bad. His policies, if implemented, would likely increase GDP, but still not make a big difference in the deficit or debt or spending.

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

Great! No capital gains on 200K or less. For the most part that's like giving the middle and lower classes the shirtsleeves out of a vest.

So the middle class still plays the market a lot? :roll:

Is the middle class often selling property? Not bloody likely.

Click to expand...

Mithros said:

Sure, I'd agree that the part where I'd say that I think Obama's done a passable job is subjective. I just don't see him having a whole lot of economic flexibility. There aren't any major decisions that I can say he should have done this instead of that. There may be parts of budgets I don't like, but nothing that I'd say warranted a veto.

Sure Romney will increase the GDP, but only because the deficit directly adds to the GDP. It's one of those budgetary secrets that they tuck away. GDP is gov spending + private sector spending - trade deficit.

That's the biggest problem I have with Romney. His plans make be good for the campaign trail, but they're impossible to achieve. You can't increase Defence by 2Trillion, cut taxes by 5Trillion, extend the Bush tax cuts for 2Trillion, offset the difference with spending cuts and tax expenditures, and not blow a hole in the deficit. The problem is that each and every one of those items caters to a different portion of his base.

Romney wont' be able to govern without the Social Conservative, the Libertarians, the Norquist tax cutters, the NeoCon defence enthusiasts, and the deficit hawks all backing him. And he also can't deliver what he's promised to each of the groups. What's going to happen when he has to say to one or two of them that they aren't getting what they want? He'll no longer have a governing coalition.

Click to expand...

Donahue said:

I suppose this depends an awfully lot on where you are at this point in your middle class life.

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

What are you saying? Your post is a non-statement. It doesn't say anything? In terms of most middle class Americans directly benefitting from no capital gains tax on 200 K or less how is that a big deal?

Click to expand...