OT: Detailed Explanation of the Romney-Ryan Tax Plan

their proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at least a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done is evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule.

in

to

to

budget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would generate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he do but wish.

@slowman

4 years of Obama's programs have proven to be worse than FDR's programs in the early 1930's. Enough said, the facts are already here.

?-)

:

heir proposal so far. If they were serious, they should have written at lea st a booklet or white paper or something on the subject. All they've done i s evade facts and details to avoid serious scrutiny and and the inevitable ridicule.

in

ng to

t to

budget and tax proposals was a distant hunch that economic recovery would g enerate enough revenue to cover the costs. Well- duh...what else could he d o but wish.

. o

n

Hoover had prepared the ground rather better than Dubbya did. Dubbya run the economy downm by only about 1.6% before the Keynsian pump- priming reversed the decline.

Hoover had put 25% of the population out of work and cut the GDP by

25% before FDR got to work. FDR had a whole lot more unused capacity to bring back into action. It still took him another three years to get the economy back to where it had been in 1929, and in 1937 James Arthur's predecessors managed to prematurely cut back the stimulation enough to put the economy back inrecession for most of the year.

As you say, the facts are already here, but you don't seem to understand them any better than James Arthur does. This is an insult, and John Larkin will criticise me for it, but it does need to be said.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

In a nutshell, Romney wants to reduce environmental regulations and taxes. A war with Iran seems to appeal to him as well. It sounds a lot like Bush to me, which is not surprising since most of his team are Bush-Cheney people.

Employment does happen to be rising. A more quantitative statement of your position might lend itself to a more qunatitative refutation.

Did you mean "unemployment benefit"? It's derisory in the US, as is obvious from the income distribution figures you adduced. which showed that pretty much everybody except the top 5% of incomes has een doing progressively worse over the past few years. Pump-priming stimulus should be concentrated on the poor who can be relied on to spend it all - maximising the Kenysian multiplier. If all the economic growth ends up benefiting the top 5% - which does seem to be what's happening in the US at the moment - the multiplier is a whole lot less.

Spening on infra-structure does tend to benefit the contractor who organise the work rather than the workers who do it. It's a good idea, but scarcely the ideal form of pump-priming stimulus.

If you got foodstamps, would you spend the money they saved you? That sort of benenfit has to be directed at the poor who can be relied to spend all the money they can get, not the middle class, who have the option to save for a rainy day. or a business oportunity (and such opportunities come up less often when the economy isn't expanding all that rapidly).

Of course it works. It just doesn't work as dramatically as would suit your strawman argument.

Actually the yeild was positve, if small.

It doesn't work as well as we'd all like. It works a whole loit better than no stimulus.

That's actually a lie. You beleive what you are claiming, but what you are claiming doesn;t happen to be true.

GDP is growing, unemployment is falling. James Arthur's idea of "not working" suits his party-political bias - it hasn't got an basis in reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

When Obama was pressed by the folks on Univision to admit he had not kept his promise to offer a bill on immigration reform to Congress within one year (he still hasn't), his reply was:

"I didn't make a promise to KEEP ALL OF MY PROMISES"

Translation:

"My word isn't WORTH SHIT!"

promise to offer a bill on immigration reform to Congress within one year (he still hasn't), his reply was:

I am sure Romney will be much better, at WORTH SHIT !!

rote:

his promise to offer a bill on immigration reform to Congress within one y ear (he still hasn't), his reply was:

That's NOT what he said! His words were that he did not promise that he wou ld be /able/ to get everything he promised done. The video for that portion of the interview from a conservative radical website below.

How eloquent...don't you have a 6-pack of really cheap beer to finish off?

"Obama replied, "When we talked about immigration reform the first year, th at was before the economic collapse." He added that since he failed to get a single Republican to support immigration reform, the bill was never passe d. The immigration reform proposal was floated by congressional Democrats i n April, 2010."

Most Latino immigrants come from countries ruled by ruthless dictatorships. It is not condescending to explain how the American system works to really clueless people.

Evidence? What would be the right amount? Paul Krugman says that the major problem with the current stimulus package is that it's going to the wrong people, who can't be relied on to spend every cent they get, and this is probably at least as important as the size of the stimulus package.

Strictly speaking, Congress ignored their knowledge. Obama was just stuck with trying to get the TEa Party to do stuiff that - if it worked - would make him more likely to be re-elected. Go figure.

is involved?  What

They could repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which would be a good start. In fact all I was saying that Obama and James Arthur probably aren't looking at the same numbers when they do their calculations, and I've not got a lot of faith in James Arthur's approach to calculatinng what a Democratic administration might be able to raise.

If he isn't, it hasn't been mentioned in newspapers outside of America.

Really? It's obvious that you don't like my conclusions, but your response isn't heavy on intellectual content.

James Arthur is in campaign mode. His "truth" is what he can see through his right-wing blinkers. It hasn't got much connection to reality.

The economy was decling at at 1.6% per quarter until the stimulus package kicked in. It's been expanding - if slowly - since then.

Which is still a whole better than shrinking at 6% per year, which is how it started out in 2008, and what it kept on doing through 1930,

1931 and 1932.

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

No, not really. Neither is a good critique of his positions, such as they are. Taxes he wants to play with ( a hedge fund manager does sensitivity analysis first, and the mistakes leak into all of our lives ) and I don't see anything coherent from him about environmental regulations. He says "drill baby drill" but I doubt much will come of it. The hydrocarbon markets are seriously struggling with various uncertainties right now. I am not sure that opening ANWAR will make that any better.

it's not really a supply problem. I don't know how to characterize it. it sorta smells like a tech turnover.

Really? you just said that?

Obama is much more like Bush than Romney ever could be. I am not sure how to explain that.

--
Les Cargill

that was before the economic collapse." He added that since he failed to ge t a single Republican to support immigration reform, the bill was never pas sed. The immigration reform proposal was floated by congressional Democrats in April, 2010."

You didn't even find the right quote, so go try again.

his promise to offer a bill on immigration reform to Congress within one year (he still hasn't), his reply was:

Well, let's GIVE IT A TRY and find out!