Mitt in Wonderland: Shrink the debt AND cut taxes by 20%?

Rick Santorum points to the GOP's 2012 nominee to be president of the United States

Rick Santorum points to the GOP's 2012 nominee to be president of the United States

Prior to last night’s debate, Mitt Romney released an updated version of his tax plan, which now calls for a 20 percent reduction in marginal tax rates across the board. And while the top tax rate would drop from 35 to 28 percent, Romney pledged yesterday afternoon that he would take steps to ensure that the top 1 percent wouldn’t reap huge benefits.

“And by the way, I want to make sure that you understand, for middle-income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, those things will continue, but for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that so we make sure the top 1 percent keeps paying, paying the current share they’re paying or more. We want middle-income Americans to be the place we focus our help, because its middle-income Americans that have been hurt by this Obama economy.”

However, a few hours later, after Rush Limbaugh went on the air to condemn Romney for buying into the “1 percent vs. 99 percent” meme, and after Rick Santorum attacked him for the same thing, Romney changed his tune, asserting in the debate that “Number one, I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.”

Now, the vision of Romney publicly flip-flopping on his own plan in a matter of mere hours should not alarm you. The man’s a professional; he has done this kind of thing before. He can shown the ability to twist himself into knots that would break the spine of mere mortals. In fact, once his political career is over, he’s going on the road as a contortionist with Cirque du Soleil.

In the meantime, however, we have this tax plan to consider.

In the past, Romney has said that current debt trends are unsustainable, and they are. He has said it is immoral to continue to pile debt on our children and grandchildren, and it is. He argues that we’re going to have to make cuts in entitlement programs, and we will.

However, I do not know how it is possible to make such statements about the debt and then turn around and promise to “cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent,” as he did last night. Even for Romney, this is a challenging contortion.

The bipartisan Center for a Responsible Federal Budget (see note below) has taken a look at Romney’s new plan and has concluded that if he really does enact the promised 20 percent tax cut, federal debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from 68 percent in 2011 to 96 percent by 2021.

The CRFB has also analyzed the impact of the proposed Obama budget. Using what it believes to be more realistic economic and spending projections than provided by the administration, CFRB says that by 2021, the Obama approach would produce a debt-to-GDP ratio of 84 percent. While high, that is considerably lower than that produced under the Romney approach.

In the debate last night, Romney promised that if elected he would look at every federal program and ask, “Is this program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” It’s an effective rhetorical device, and not a bad way to look at spending proposals either.

However, honest debate requires the admission that a 20 percent cut in taxes would also be financed by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and elsewhere. Over the long term, the hard truth is that to reclaim control of our fiscal future, we will have to raise taxes, not cut taxes, while we also reduce spending. To suggest that we can make progress on such a goal while slashing taxes yet again is economically, mathematically and morally fraudulent.

– Jay Bookman

NOTE: From 9:30 to 11 a.m., CFRB will present a streamed update of its analysis of the tax and budget plans of the Republican presidential nominees. It can be viewed here.

307 comments Add your comment

Randalph, the Wraith

February 23rd, 2012
10:36 am

Barrycare isn’t free silly Butch. It actually raises the cost of healthcare. No concept of economics.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:36 am

Point is, owners of S-corps have mechanisms available to recategorize income and avoid taxes the majority of Americans pay.

Absolutely. You should see how many interesting ways there are to restructure your expenses to get the maximum tax benefit. And none of them rely on having an account in the Cayman’s.

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

February 23rd, 2012
10:36 am

I encourage everyone to watch Republican Bruce Bartlett’s interview on TDS from last night. Bartlett is alone among the GOP in his truth telling.

CJ

February 23rd, 2012
10:38 am

Over the long term, the hard truth is that to reclaim control of our fiscal future, we will have to raise taxes, not cut taxes, while we also reduce spending.

Great piece Jay.

However, it’s my understanding that we were able to dramatically reduce the deficit as a share of GDP after WWII and balance the budget and return to surpluses in the 90s, not by reducing spending, but by increasing economic growth. Economic growth also increases revenues. If so, then this approach should also be included in the mix when discussing deficits and debt.

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
10:38 am

(ir)Rational – ” is that really what you think is right for Americans?”

I think if everyone had access to free healthcare, it would be great. Unfortunately, it’s just not possible. I was responding to Randalph who said “he thinks doing what is right for Americans is what’s best for Americans.”

gm

February 23rd, 2012
10:38 am

Steve

Lets not have any apologies.” and have more Americans die you people are sick

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:40 am

Bartlett is alone among the GOP in his truth telling.

Not true. Check out David Stockman’s truth telling on the anti-tax crusade.

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
10:40 am

Randalph – ” No concept of economics.”

This from the person who believes the POTUS can affect the price of oil and gas in a global market.

sheepdawg

February 23rd, 2012
10:40 am

Bruno- chill out. You will be just fine post Obama in 2017, and I’m sure you’ll grow fond of President Hillary.

Paul

February 23rd, 2012
10:40 am

ByteMe

I see that. And I’ll offer what the average wage earner sees is, regardless of the amount, the top n% gets a break they don’t. Telling them ‘yeah, well, it’s only a little bit in comparison to 250 grand’ isn’t, I think, a good selling point. A good explanation, yes, but not something to be used to win converts.

JohnnyReb

February 23rd, 2012
10:40 am

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:36 am

Point is, owners of S-corps have mechanisms available to recategorize income and avoid taxes the majority of Americans pay.

Absolutely. You should see how many interesting ways there are to restructure your expenses to get the maximum tax benefit. And none of them rely on having an account in the Cayman’s

OK, I’m for a flat tax. That would remove all the perceived loop holes and make everything fair.

My guess is you or other opposers to reality are not for a fair tax. And the so-called “fair share” is not really what is meant. “Fair” from the Left means, pay more so I can either pay less or have more.

Paul

February 23rd, 2012
10:41 am

That show on the link to US Budget Watch Jay provided is really interesting.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:41 am

However, it’s my understanding that we were able to dramatically reduce the deficit as a share of GDP after WWII and balance the budget

Your understanding is not entirely correct. Into an expanding economy, taxes were raised by Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Tax rates after WW2 were 70+% at the top end.

Get Real

February 23rd, 2012
10:42 am

Mitt Romney in Wonderland..

Did Obama have to move over to make room for him?

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
10:43 am

Get Real – “Mitt Romney in Wonderland..

Did Obama have to move over to make room for him?”

Unfortunately there was only enough room for Obama and Bush.

JohnnyReb

February 23rd, 2012
10:44 am

Any statement of tax rates being higher in the past is a canard without also explaining the loop holes that allowd avoiding the subject high rate. The rates may have been higher, but few if any paid at that rate. Today’s rates were reduced as the loop holes were eliminated.

Paul

February 23rd, 2012
10:44 am

Redneck

“Up at Billy Bob’s we call it the Redneck Convert Curve.”

Laffer wrote his idea on a napkin at a restaurant table.

I’m guessing you guys used a different kind of paper in a different stall in the restaurant?

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:45 am

Butch – Realizing that you were just trying to get a response from someone else, I’ll go ahead and do the same to you, just for the fun of it. You say you think everyone should have access to free healthcare. Does that everyone include the top 1%? Or do you think they should have to pay for theirs? They can obviously afford it, and the government is much better at deciding what their money should be spent on than they are, so why not?

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

February 23rd, 2012
10:45 am

(ir)Rational

I think the centrist ship for Romney has sailed. He would have to walk back on so many things that his photo, and not the shoes, would be sitting beside the word flip flop in Webster’s.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:45 am

My guess is you or other opposers to reality are not for a fair tax

I do oppose it, but not for the reason you think. I oppose the current fair tax being proposed because:

1) It would radically restructure our spending patterns over the course of a single day. We’d go from a consumption society to a savings society as the calendar changed over… and that will be strongly detrimental to 70% of the economy (which is what consumer spending amounts to).

2) The percentage the fair-taxers throw out there is way too low to generate the necessary revenue in the face of reduced spending patterns.

3) One of the big promises is that “it’ll get rid of the IRS”, but that’s just fantasy, because someone has to police everyone not paying their share of taxes (and people will find ways not to pay it).

Fix that and then let’s talk about it.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:47 am

Bro – You’re probably right. Sad as it is.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:47 am

Today’s rates were reduced as the loop holes were eliminated.

And then the loopholes were added back in. Few pay the top effective rate today either.

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
10:47 am

(ir)Rational – “Does that everyone include the top 1%?

Everyone includes everyone. Like I said, I think it would be great to have free healthcare for everybody but it’s just not possible. Much like I think it would be great if everyone made a million dollars a year tax free. It’s a nice thought, but hardly doable.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:48 am

ByteMe – The research I’ve seen on the FairTax has shown that the number should be enough to generate the necessary income. I would love to see some credible research (assuming you have some) that shows otherwise.

Get Real

February 23rd, 2012
10:48 am

Butch….no argument from me…

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:49 am

Like I said, I think it would be great to have free healthcare for everybody but it’s just not possible.

I’m a proponent of the Swiss model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:49 am

Butch – Just trying to see if you meant “everyone” or the liberal definition of everyone that we see here so much.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

February 23rd, 2012
10:49 am

Laffer wrote his idea on a napkin at a restaurant table.

I’m guessing you guys used a different kind of paper in a different stall in the restaurant?

Well, let’s just say we ain’t much for going into bathroom stalls and tapping the shoe of the guy in the next stall. And Wide Stances ain’t in fashion up there.

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
10:50 am

Instead of cutting tax rates, we should eliminate all the loopholes and deductions, including phasing out the mortgage tax deduction. All the mortgage tax deduction does is encourage people to build bigger and more expensive homes, with the governement helping them pay the cost.
Corp. tax rates should be reduced, with the loopholes taken out.

Ahem

February 23rd, 2012
10:50 am

“Simple Truths

February 23rd, 2012
9:27 am
As bad as Jay’s blog is, remember, it is much better than Cynthia Tucker’s old blog.”

Indeed.

Talking Head

February 23rd, 2012
10:51 am

Anger over high gas prices will continue to swell, and more and more people will blame the COTUS. His days are numbered.

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
10:52 am

ByteMe – “I’m a proponent of the Swiss model.”

Your point is well taken. I should have said not possible under our form of government. There are many countries that provide free healthcare and education to the population. But we all know what word is used to describe those countries don’t we?

carlosgvv

February 23rd, 2012
10:52 am

“honest debate”

Jay, you and all Democrats know honesty is the last thing you can expect from Romney, Gingrich and Santorum now and in the months to come. They have calculated, correctly, that the majority of Republican voters are credulous beyond belief and will swallow even the most callous and shameless lies without question. It remains to be seen if our country has enough Democrats and independents to keep these liars out of the White House.

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

February 23rd, 2012
10:53 am

(ir)Rational

I try to remain as truthful as possible with my personal view on things. With Romney, I see the opportunity to neuter the extremes as lost in this election cycle.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:53 am

ByteMe – The idea is great, but being a healthy 27 year old male, I pay WAY less (by that I mean, something like 1/4) now than what I would pay under their system for the same coverage.

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

February 23rd, 2012
10:53 am

Bush crude high = $147/bbl

Today’s price = $105/bbl

Its Obama’s fault!

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:54 am

The research I’ve seen on the FairTax has shown that the number should be enough to generate the necessary income

They assume that the change in spending patterns caused by the shift in tax application will not happen. But it will. You’ll be tacking a tax on every purchase, instead of just some purchases like we have today. You’ll be eliminating deductions for certain purchases. Any adjustment like that over the course of a single day will severely dislocate the economy and cause spending to fall. Which means revenues won’t match expectations and the rate will have to rise to compensate for it.

And if you bring in the same revenue as today, you have the same deficits as today. So it doesn’t help that.

The biggest problem: by shifting from income taxes to spending taxes, you’re putting all your eggs into a basket that shrinks strongly during recessions (spending on items decreases during recessions even if income and employment doesn’t shrink as much). It’s better to spread the taxes throughout the economy so that you don’t lose the revenue if one source dries up.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
10:54 am

Bro – Sad isn’t it? Yeah, I like to remain truthful, but it is sometimes so much fun to just poke at people to see how long it takes them to pop. That could be the kid in me. :)

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
10:56 am

His days are numbered.

_________

Numbered is right. By my count, a little short of five years, including the second term.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
10:56 am

The idea is great, but being a healthy 27 year old male, I pay WAY less (by that I mean, something like 1/4) now than what I would pay under their system for the same coverage.

Yes. But health is a fleeting thing. You’re one car wreck — or crazy spouse — away from being a drain on the healthcare system. Trends you think can stretch forever never do.

AmVet

February 23rd, 2012
10:56 am

His days are numbered.

Of course, they are.

To the tune of approximately 1810 days.

And that is simply because of your beloved gang that can’t shoot straight.

If you could find an even halfway decent candidate, he’d lose by a mile…

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

February 23rd, 2012
10:57 am

Well, I wish these people would quit pushing this idea of a different tax system to take care of our problems. Now you know and I know that the minute a new tax system is signed into law some guy with more money than Midas will be making a humongous campaign contribution to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee to make some adjustments to the new system. And after a couple years we’ll have nonsense like a Human Depletion Allowance and maybe 300% depreciation and a Capital Formation Incentive. And by the time they’re finished we’ll be right back to where we started before the new system, with the big-money people paying a lower rate than the poor slug that works with his hands. Just give up the idea that a different tax system will take care of things. We’re talking about human pigs, not Angels.

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
10:57 am

But we all know what word is used to describe those countries don’t we?

_____

Yes, we do. That word is successful.

Not a Neal Boortz Redneck

February 23rd, 2012
10:58 am

The Fair Tax is the biggest sham foisted on ignorant hillbillies I have ever seen. Its real purpose is to kill the estate and capital gains taxes.

Let ONE state pass the amendment and then talk about it.

Just ONE state.

Mighty Righty

February 23rd, 2012
10:59 am

Under Jay’s reasoning a reduction in taxes by Romney or for that matter any Republican does not result in an increases in tax revenue therefore the budget deficit will grow. But, if Obama’s 2% decrease in payroll tax stays in place it will help the economy producing more tax revenue. Also to new Obama tax decrease plan will cause the economy to grow. So, lower taxes by Republicans bad, while lower taxes by Obama good. The left has become so nutty they don’t even know what their own position is. Obamanomics is flip flopanomics. The closer we get to an election the worse Obama and his sycophantic media will get.

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
11:00 am

The Fair Tax is just a sales tax with a rebate system that will not work. Just a regressive tax plan. Clue is they call it a fair tax, when it’s anything but that.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:00 am

ByteMe – You were saying eliminating deductions from certain purchases, I’m assuming houses are one of those purchases you’re referring to. Under the FairTax, you’re only taxed on an item the first time it is sold. When you buy a used house or a used car, you wouldn’t pay the extra tax. The research I’ve seen (while obviously biased, what I’ve read had enough economists signing on to it to make me think that it is only slightly exaggerated) suggests that the economy would grow, and spending would increase enough to raise federal revenue over what it is now. For practical models, I look at Florida, Texas, Washington State and Tennessee and see that for the most part, it seems to be working fairly well in those states. Not saying they don’t have deficits, but pretty much everywhere does today.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:02 am

But, if Obama’s 2% decrease in payroll tax stays in place it will help the economy producing more tax revenue.

Deductions at the high end do less for the economy than deductions at the low end. If you do the research, you’ll find that the multiplier on unemployment insurance payouts is around 1.6, because they spend every penny they get from it on things that they need and consume. Whereas the multiplier on tax cuts or deductions for the wealthy is around 0.3.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:04 am

ByteMe – Yeah, that’s why I buy insurance. Not because I need it so much today, but so that if I do need it, I’ll have it. I’ve needed it once since I graduated college, and that was when I was playing with an ax and missed the tree I was aiming at and hit my knee. Other than that, I’ve been pretty good. But, yeah, I am one car accident or crazy person away from needing it, but that’s what the insurance is for. Forcing me to pay 4x more today, just in case I have a problem tomorrow doesn’t make sense to me.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:04 am

For practical models, I look at Florida, Texas, Washington State and Tennessee and see that for the most part, it seems to be working fairly well in those states

It works better at the state level where you don’t have to take from one state to subsidize another. Georgia receives $1.11 for every $1.00 in taxes they send to the Feds. New Mexico gets over $2.00 (Indian population is quite poor there). All those states also have more than one tax on things… not just one sales tax, but also taxes on certain other transactions (like hotels, rental cars, etc.).

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:06 am

Forcing me to pay 4x more today, just in case I have a problem tomorrow doesn’t make sense to me.

Have you wondered if maybe you’re already paying some of that in other taxes (like Medicare taxes)? Also note that Switzerland is a small VERY expensive country… the pool is smaller to spread the risk.

Mighty Righty

February 23rd, 2012
11:07 am

According to “ByteMe”if everyone was unemployed revenue to the federal government would muliply exponentially. Tere you have it. Lay everyone off and our national debt would quickly disappear. What a concept.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:08 am

According to “ByteMe”if everyone was unemployed revenue to the federal government would muliply exponentially.

Once again, a Rightwingnutistan resident shows their lack of reading comprehension.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:08 am

ByteMe – We’ll never know for sure until we try, but that means we’ll probably never know. That’s just my opinion on it. I haven’t seen anything very credible that made a reasonable argument against it, and until I do, I’ll continue thinking it is a good idea.

Adam

February 23rd, 2012
11:10 am

If you think there’s a war on religion, why don’t you see if someone gets brutally beaten for practicing in public.

Tim Tebow – totally fine
Muslims – not so much

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
11:10 am

(ir)Rational

Have you looked at how the government run pre-bate is supposed to work. Look at it and tell me it’s a good idea. The same people that think the govt. can’t run anything right think it can run a pre-bate. Amusing.

Adam

February 23rd, 2012
11:10 am

“It appears Barack Obama has failed to keep many of the campaign promises that his opponents made for him. Including the incredibly specific ones” – Jon Stewart

DawgDad

February 23rd, 2012
11:11 am

“It’s been said before, of course, but the problem is the Republican base, who’ve been assured by the Neal Boortz’s of the world that cutting taxes results in increased revenues. And those are the true believers who turn out for Republican primaries.”

I’m assured of that because I’VE WITNESSED IT. Just because you’re a sheep doesn’t mean we are.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:11 am

I haven’t seen anything very credible that made a reasonable argument against it, and until I do, I’ll continue thinking it is a good idea.

I always thought the argument over healthcare should be this “no one should ever go bankrupt because they had a health problem.” If you start from there, the options become both more capitalistic and easier to solve with the existing system. Just make Medicare an anti-bankruptcy plan (e.g., $10,000-per-year max outlay) for everyone and then anyone — including employers — can buy supplemental plans on an open market to cover the difference if they want.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:12 am

ByteMe – Yeah, I realize that those taxes are taken out of my paycheck today, and I have no real problem paying them. But that is still a big difference between having a compulsory insurance plan that I have to purchase, that costs 4x what mine does today. Also, I do realize Switzerland is very small and also very expensive. I went there once, and that once was enough for me.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:13 am

I went there once, and that once was enough for me.

It helped to learn that Italian restaurants have the same basic menu as here. Lasagna translates well. After figuring that out, I could find food easier :) I spent about 7 weeks there over the course of 3 years, so I had time to figure these things out. Like never expect a real breakfast there.

Thulsa Doom

February 23rd, 2012
11:15 am

“As per whatever specific plans he may be advancing now, I’ll put them in the same circular file I put all politician’s campaign promises. Or do we need to rehash all of the empty promises that Obama made??”

No sir. I am not going to rent a megasize storage building to file away all of Obama’s many broken promises.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:16 am

Oscar – Have you ever looked at how to blog without being annoying? Wow, I’ve seen double posts, but not quadruple. And yeah, I’ve also seen where companies like Visa were already bidding on the option to take over that system if the FairTax were ever implemented.

ByteMe @ 11:11 – That actually makes a lot of sense. I would be all for that.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:16 am

compulsory insurance plan that I have to purchase, that costs 4x what mine does today

My view of it is that the plan would be covered via taxes (like Medicare is today) and it won’t cost 4X if it’s covering 310 million people (13% over 65) instead of only 7 million (17% over 65).

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:18 am

ByteMe – If you want a good breakfast in Europe, go to Germany or Austria. I just can’t think of anything that compares to bratwurst for breakfast. :) The thing that got me was a happy meal at McDonald’s cost about $15 when I was there. Luckily, I was just there with friends and didn’t eat there, but the others did and I about fainted when I saw that. I stuck with street vendors and such for my lunch.

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:20 am

ByteMe – If my insurance costs didn’t rise dramatically, I could be convinced. If for no other reason to allow my wife to get good insurance. But then again, I’m relatively poor, and stingy with what money I do have, so that is a big concern for me.

Here we go!

February 23rd, 2012
11:22 am

Randolph – Bush set the timeline to exit Iraq, the Iraqi government would not change that date. All of us knew when the deadline was. How is that different from Obama? Reference to oil, Obama has allowed more oil rigs than the prior admin. Opening Keystone, nobody stated it better than Ted Turner yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/22/opinion/turner-keystone-pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

February 23rd, 2012
11:23 am

A road dog’s tax plan would be better, and more coherent, than the Supreme Leader’s tax plan.

Mighty Righty

February 23rd, 2012
11:25 am

I know this is not the conservative view, but anyone who thinks the government will allow a new tax without screwing around with it is out of touch with reality. The so called “fair tax” will not be fair. The government, Republican and Democrat, will increase tax revenue, waste the money the same as they have always done. When it comes to spending and the politicians never ending need for additional revenue, the only difference beween Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican rank and file are more likely to pressure their representative’s to hold down spending while most Democrats want an increase in spending. The difference is the Democrat party had done a better job of attracting the economicly ignorant. The dumber a voter is, the more likely the voter will be unemployed, on welefare, illegal, uninformed and a Democrat.

ByteMe

February 23rd, 2012
11:25 am

The thing that got me was a happy meal at McDonald’s cost about $15 when I was there.

Had a Chinese meal for 2 that cost $125. But Italian and Swiss meals were more in line with what they should cost. I actually didn’t eat at McDonalds. The local grocery store had an awesome salad bar that I ate at for the first 2 weeks while I tried to figure out the “Swiss-German” language.

Butch Cassidy

February 23rd, 2012
11:25 am

Mighty Righty

February 23rd, 2012
11:28 am

Reference to oil, Obama has allowed more oil rigs than the prior admin. Opening Keystone, nobody stated it better than Ted Turner yesterday:

My understanding is that all new drilling and discovery that has occured under the Obama Administration was approved under the Bush Administration and that there has been no new new drilling under Obama. Anyone?

(ir)Rational

February 23rd, 2012
11:29 am

ByteMe – I would pay that much for Chinese food. Its worth it. :) McDonald’s not so much.

Jay

February 23rd, 2012
11:30 am

“But, if Obama’s 2% decrease in payroll tax stays in place it will help the economy producing more tax revenue.

Mighty, please cite where I have argued that the payroll tax cut will produce more revenue. For that matter, please cite where anybody on the left has made such an argument.

You are fabricating things. While I am more than willing to defend what I have written, I will not attempt to defend things that you invent on my behalf.

I do think that short-term tax cuts, particularly on middle-income consumers, will boost the economy through this difficult period. Economists are all but unanimous on that point. But as I noted above, over the long term taxes are going to have to be increased.

They BOTH suck

February 23rd, 2012
11:33 am

Mighty Righty

“the only difference beween Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican rank and file are more likely to pressure their representative’s to hold down spending”

Guess you are not referencing when Reagan had a Repub Senate and Bush 2 had 6 yrs of Repub House and Senate.

Oscar

February 23rd, 2012
11:34 am

Almost everyone who looks at our future budget agrees that taxes will have to be increased. Except for Romney. He seems to be in his own little world. Eliminating deductions and loopholes would be better than increasing the tax rates.

Here we go!

February 23rd, 2012
11:38 am

“According to Andy Radford, senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute, permit approvals have dropped 65 percent, post gulf oil spill. Prior to the gulf disaster, the Obama administration reported approving 217 new well permits (shallow and deepwater).” found in this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-there-has-been-just-one-ne/

mm

February 23rd, 2012
11:39 am

“A road dog’s tax plan would be better, and more coherent, than the Supreme Leader’s tax plan.”

I didn’t know North Korea had a tax plan.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare = Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

February 23rd, 2012
11:43 am

Jay, Conservative voters don’t care much for reality. All you have to do to get their votes is to get Fox News to buy your spiel. Bingo – you’re in!

[...] Santorum–Rick …Romney Calls for 20% Cut in Tax Rates Before Arizona DebateBusinessWeekMitt in Wonderland: Shrink the debt AND cut taxes by 20%?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)FACT CHECK: Errant claims on auto bailout, taxesBoston.comall [...]

Gator Joe

February 23rd, 2012
12:09 pm

Once again for the intellectually challenged Right Wing, “Democrat” is a noun, as in “I’m a Democrat,” not an adjective as you persist in using it, example “the Democrat Party.”

Billybob

February 23rd, 2012
12:19 pm

jay,
projecting again i see………..the morally fraudulent party is the one with the radical leftist morally fraudulent president………..pathetic, but enlightening to see that you are hanging on by a thread lib…..enjoy, oh, and anything on media matters jay?….talk about morally fraudulent……very easy…….
the general election will be all about obama and he’s got nothing to run and win on, so enjoy the bickereing during the republican selection b/c when it’s over……OBAMA IS OVER

[...] Santorum — Rick …Romney Calls for 20% Cut in Tax Rates Before Arizona DebateBusinessWeekMitt in Wonderland: Shrink the debt AND cut taxes by 20%?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)FACT CHECK: Errant claims on auto bailout, [...]

rivercard

February 23rd, 2012
12:52 pm

Gator Joe- Please don’t discourage them from using their use of Democrat at all times. It saves me a lot of time weeding out the disingenuous uninformed lemmings.Plus I get a kick out of how pleased they seem with themselves when they use it.

Don't Judge Obama Against God But Judge Him Against The Alternative

February 23rd, 2012
12:59 pm

The Republicans will waste their time doing something that has already been done by other people, when they could be doing something more worthwhile.

JKL2

February 23rd, 2012
1:02 pm

-current debt trends are unsustainable, and they are

obama and the entire Demwit loving world says, “What?” Deficits don’t matter. Keep them printing presees rolling. We’ll stop illegal immigration by making the dollar worth less than a peso. All the Mexicans will be forced to move back for “the good jobs”.

Of course Americans will not be allowed to follow since Mexico has much more strict immigration policies than we do…

Vote obama: Free money for everyone.

Robert

February 23rd, 2012
1:40 pm

Jay – I agree with most of your posts but I pose the question; should the amount that I pay in Federal taxes per month be more (500 per month more) than I pay for my house? Here are details. Just finished up 2011 taxes and paided 24000 on 125000 of income. Single (divorced actually) and mortgage on house is $1660/month for a $235000 house or at least it was a few years back but that’s a different story. I think $2,000/month is quite enough for the federal governemnt to operate! I also believe in the progressive structure of taxes but man the spending side has to be dramatically reduced!!!

Hmmmmmmmmm

February 23rd, 2012
2:09 pm

It’s really should read, Obama and Mitt in Wonderland…. They are both out of their MINDS!

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:11 pm

This Jarrett woman who is Obama’s main ” ear full person” said today that unemployment is fueling the economy….You can’t make this stuff up. Unemployment checks are being spent and helping the economy…..You think…..How about a 600,700 or 800 dollar a week job Ms. Jarrett. Think that would help. And would provide revenue for the Feds vs all out go. How stupid do they think we are?

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:13 pm

Obama wants to outlaw guns because he knows what’s coming when the producers have no more money to take.

Hmmmmmmmmm

February 23rd, 2012
2:14 pm

JB, They think we are VERY stupid….. Considering the voting record for this country, they are right! Kinda Sad!

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:20 pm

I hate when Social Security is lumped in with entitlement conversation. My butt. Work 40 years at just 30,000 a year and get a return of 5% will give you almost a 725,000 nest egg. Pay that out at just 4% income and it will give you about 29,000 per year. THIS IS NOT an entitlement. It’s your money….And them Dem’s have spent it all by the way. Entitlements is getting other peoples Tax money for doing and giving nothing.

Steve

February 23rd, 2012
2:26 pm

Jay…you better turn up your Republican bashing (not sure if that is actually possible)…

“Mitt Romney leads President Obama by 4 percentage points in Gallup’s latest national head-to-head polling.

If the election were held Thursday, 50 percent said they would support Romney, versus 46 percent who would support Obama, according to Gallup. The president holds the edge on former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), 49 percent to 48 percent. “

Hmmmmmmmmm

February 23rd, 2012
2:29 pm

Social Security,

Just another SCAM that your Washington politicians have pulled…. When will you people wake up!

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:38 pm

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm… you are correct. Where else can you get 200 million people to give you ( and their employers 15% of their earnings for over 35-40 years, grow it to a million dollars and trickle them back about half of it, IF they live 10-15 years………….But, we’re dealing with crooks who will TAKE half of all you’ve made and paid taxes on at your death….as theirs….just for dying. Al Kappone would cut you a better deal.

Rightwing Troll

February 23rd, 2012
2:42 pm

And… (as predicted…) Sister Sarah volunteered she might have to step in if no suitable candidate can be found… Get ready wingnuts, she’s in, just wait.

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm

Obama would win by 70% if Sarah got in. She knows it, the GOP knows it, Obama knows it. Not gonna happen. Most America haters are hoping a real strong person doesn’t jump in, because this lame guy is almost beatable with a weak candidate.

Hmmmmmmmmm

February 23rd, 2012
2:46 pm

Exactly JB, but then we have half wits like Bookman who buy in to this madness!

JB

February 23rd, 2012
2:51 pm

Higher taxes
Gay rights
open borders
weak military
Anti religion
abortion on demand
cradle to grave entitlements
Anti oil.
Government is the answer

Why doesn’t Obama campaign on these. They are all in his wheel house.

Proud American

February 23rd, 2012
3:00 pm

Just because as you said it “performed well on a debate” doesn’t qualify them to be a good president. Give me a break. Neither one is worth voting for either. It looks as though the Republican party doesn’t want any of the candidates running. Each month they change in the polls.