Without reading the book, if the economy went south and gas prices went south, why is the economy still south and gas prices are north?

 

I know, read the book. I want an answer now.

 

Easy answer, other countries now also have a high demand for oil. More competition.

Easy answer, other countries now also have a high demand for oil. More competition.

 

Correct. There's a new "low" and it's what we used to call "high."

So, my thoughts as an undecided voter:

 

Both left a lot to be desired by not answering the questions directly and on point.

 

Obama's demeanor was much more animated this time. I liked that.

 

Romney was very vehement in his delivery, a plus for him.

 

Obama disappointed me when addressing the woman about women making only 72% of men's salary. Honestly, there's not much the government can do to force employers to value women equally. He should have skipped the story about his grandmother and spent more on the Ledbetter legislation, and then ended with the truth-government cannot legislate suggestive bias.

 

I got excited when I thought Romney was going to explain his tax plan. But he lost me at "capital gains interest exemption". As a middle-income earner with no investments outside of a 401K and meager savings, that doesn't benefit me. In the end, his "25K bucket" would not benefit me at all.

 

I'm still basically undecided, but leaning with voting Obama simply because I do NOT want the AHCA repealed. And, O feel he has kept the promises he made that were important to me. And Romney scares me because he still won't clearly state his economic plans. Things are good for me.and mine right now, and getting better. Not sure I want to gamble with that.

Gov Romney used $25k last night as his example of a "deduction limit" for taxpayers. That would only cover about 20% of the cost of the tax cut.

When I was pre-voting age I remember my dad always saying that there is a reason there is a curtain at the voting booth. That stuck with me. I have never told my wife who I am voting for and I have no clue who she is voting for. Doesn't matter to me. It's a personal decision. Is that the right approach? No clue. It is my approach though.

 

Very commendable.

So, my thoughts as an undecided voter:

 

Both left a lot to be desired by not answering the questions directly and on point.

 

Exactly! Whenever anyone in any interview or debate doesn't really answer the question that was asked, I always wish someone would call them on it.:irked:

 

Obama's demeanor was much more animated this time. I liked that.

 

It was. My question was if it was because someone had advised him that his demeanor in the last debate was awful? Or did he sandbag himself in the first debate so that he could easily excede expectations this time?

 

By the way, I'm a registered Democrat living in a Republican county.

Aaack! How did that video end up in my reply?!?!?

Exactly! Whenever anyone in any interview or debate doesn't really answer the question that was asked, I always wish someone would call them on it.:irked:

 

 

 

It was. My question was if it was because someone had advised him that his demeanor in the last debate was awful? Or did he sandbag himself in the first debate so that he could easily excede expectations this time?

 

By the way, I'm a registered Democrat living in a Republican county.

 

Yes on the first bolded. Candidate Romney probably surprised himself the first time around; the President woke up this time.

 

No on the second bolded. Nobody "intentionally loses" any debate when the presidency is the prize.

Gov Romney used $25k last night as his example of a "deduction limit" for taxpayers. That would only cover about 20% of the cost of the tax cut.

 

As of now regular income tax rates are 10 to 35%, Romney wants to drop the rates to 8% to 28%. Romney says that the cuts are revenue neutral if they limit deductions and count the positive effect on revenue due to extra economic growth due to better incentives.

 

Using 2009 data to estimate 2015 numbers tax payers would have about $1.7 trillion in itemized deductions. The big deductions would be Medical, State taxes, real estate tax, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions. Applying an average tax rate of 25% to these deductions suggest an additional $425 billion in revenue which is approximately 30% of all income tax revenue. If you include cautious models of revenue feedback effects, revenue would likely be boosted by another $120 billion from better economic growth.

 

The total increase in revenues would be $545 billion which would more than offset the cut in tax rates and allow the code to maintain some middle class deductions.

 

In my opinion it's a good plan but will be tough to pass due to the politics involved. My guess is that if Romney is elected he will have to make the plan temporary, because he would only need 50 votes from the Senate instead of 60, much the way Bush did in 2001.

Very commendable.

Quoting Thomas Jackson ?

As of now regular income tax rates are 10 to 35%, Romney wants to drop the rates to 8% to 28%. Romney says that the cuts are revenue neutral if they limit deductions and count the positive effect on revenue due to extra economic growth due to better incentives.

 

Using 2009 data to estimate 2015 numbers tax payers would have about $1.7 trillion in itemized deductions. The big deductions would be Medical, State taxes, real estate tax, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions. Applying an average tax rate of 25% to these deductions suggest an additional $425 billion in revenue which is approximately 30% of all income tax revenue. If you include cautious models of revenue feedback effects, revenue would likely be boosted by another $120 billion from better economic growth.

 

The total increase in revenues would be $545 billion which would more than offset the cut in tax rates and allow the code to maintain some middle class deductions.

 

In my opinion it's a good plan but will be tough to pass due to the politics involved. My guess is that if Romney is elected he will have to make the plan temporary, because he would only need 50 votes from the Senate instead of 60, much the way Bush did in 2001.

 

 

Most disagree that his goal can be accomplished. What part of their logic do you disagree with and why?

Most disagree that his goal can be accomplished. What part of their logic do you disagree with and why?

 

I'm not sure what you are looking for. I posted the numbers that supports my feeling.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. I posted the numbers that supports my feeling.

 

I appreciate you posting your numbers.

 

I will go out on a limb , and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're not an economist. I'm not either.

 

Many other economists have studied the plan and said it's not achievable without having to raise taxes on many in the middle class.

 

Your belief is different from those economists. I'm asking what flaw you see in their logic when you say the Governor's plan is a "good plan."

From what I've seen of articles on both candidat'es plans, economists differ as to the effect of the future economic growth on the numbers. Candidates tend to put in overly rosey projections that are usually not likely to be obtained. I can come up with any type of plan and if I put in a 4% GNP growth factor I can look like a genius. Just don't come looking for me in a few years to ask me what went wrong.

From what I've seen of articles on both candidat'es plans, economists differ as to the effect of the future economic growth on the numbers. Candidates tend to put in overly rosey projections that are usually not likely to be obtained. I can come up with any type of plan and if I put in a 4% GNP growth factor I can look like a genius. Just don't come looking for me in a few years to ask me what went wrong.

 

:thumb: