2012 Vice Presidential Debate - October 11 - Biden v. Ryan

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, nobody was discussing what Obamacare would entail during the year or so before it was passed.

They were arguing back and forth, but nobody was privy to the actual details. It was a lot of speculation, assumptions, etc. with both "sides" claiming the other was wrong about the bill(s).

We just found out all that stuff when it was signed. Sure, nobody was talking about the details then, nosiree bob. Except for Republicans talking about death panels and a big government takeover.

LOL -- death panels is such a red herring. Mentioned like, twice, and all of a sudden we can't talk about the economic review panel without it being a veiled reference to death panels.

Nobody knew what it would cost per person beforehand, and the actual numbers now bear little resemblance to the pre-passage predictions and estimates. Costs are much higher than anticipated, of course.

I think you may be genuinely delusional sometimes. I really do. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe, and re-writing history to boot; your Pelosi quote is out of context, as usual.

As for Romney's tax plan, I can understand your frustration. Those darn nonpartisan tax policy analysts are always obfuscating the truth when it comes to Republican math.

Go fuck yourself.

[Wumbologist]

I'm referring to the fact that there aren't enough dollars in the expiring Bush tax cuts for only those making over $250,000 to raise the $1 trillion.

Now, if you think the math has been done that shows that the numbers do add up, surely you're going on more than trust. Surely you've seen "the details" of that, right? You think it's vital to have the details and see the math, don't you?

You brought up the $1 trillion, I didn't. I'm asking what you're referring to. Try to keep up.

Meanwhile, let's not lose track of Romney's $2 trillion military spending increase, along with all the other bullshit he's peddling, which we'll somehow pay for with less tax.

No, the Obama administration IS talking about it because they said, flat out, that they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase, and the math doesn't add up to $1 trillion if all you're talking about it $250k plus tax increase due to Bush tax cuts expiring.

[/quote][/quote]

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. The only thing that seems to be coming up is a quote from Biden during the VP debate in which he referred to ending the $250k+ increase and a trillion in revenue in the same breath. Might have misspoke, might not have been mathematically sound, at any rate that's a single soundbite as opposed to a core tenet of the Romney campaign that has been analyzed thoroughly and shown to be absolutely mathematically impossible. I'm still waiting for you to show me how Romney's plan adds up, and all you've done so far is say "NO U SHOW ME". I asked first, neener neener.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm referring to the fact that there aren't enough dollars in the expiring Bush tax cuts for only those making over $250,000 to raise the $1 trillion.

Now, if you think the math has been done that shows that the numbers do add up, surely you're going on more than trust. Surely you've seen "the details" of that, right? You think it's vital to have the details and see the math, don't you?

You brought up the $1 trillion, I didn't. I'm asking what you're referring to. Try to keep up.

Biden said it the other day -- they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase. No details presented, and the numbers don't add up.

Meanwhile, let's not lose track of Romney's $2 trillion military spending increase, along with all the other bullshit he's peddling, which we'll somehow pay for with less tax.

That is nonsense. It's not a spending increase or new spending. He's setting military spending at 4% of GDP. It's Obama spin to call it an increase. Total defense spending (including war spending) stays about the same under Romney, because as war spending drops, that money is shifted to general defense spending, so the total defense spending stays the same.

No, the Obama administration IS talking about it because they said, flat out, that they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase, and the math doesn't add up to $1 trillion if all you're talking about it $250k plus tax increase due to Bush tax cuts expiring.

[/quote]

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. The only thing that seems to be coming up is a quote from Biden during the VP debate in which he referred to ending the $250k+ increase and a trillion in revenue in the same breath. Might have misspoke, might not have been mathematically sound, at any rate that's a single soundbite as opposed to a core tenet of the Romney campaign that has been analyzed thoroughly and shown to be absolutely mathematically impossible. I'm still waiting for you to show me how Romney's plan adds up, and all you've done so far is say "NO U SHOW ME". I asked first, neener neener.

It wasn't at the debate -- he said it in a speech -- http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heathergin ... rs_in_iowa

I'm still waiting for you to show me how the Obama/Biden plan adds up.

[Wumbologist]

Biden said it the other day -- they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase. No details presented, and the numbers don't add up.

"let that trillion dollar tax cut expire"

Letting a pre-existing cut expire (as it was originally supposed to do in the first place) is not the same as a tax hike. It's reverting to where it was before, and one might point out that the nation was doing pretty well at those rates. It sounds to me like the "details" are there, let the cuts expire. If that's not a trillion dollars, then you have your answer. I still don't have yours about Romney's phantom math.

That is nonsense. It's not a spending increase or new spending. He's setting military spending at 4% of GDP. It's Obama spin to call it an increase. Total defense spending (including war spending) stays about the same under Romney, because as war spending drops, that money is shifted to general defense spending, so the total defense spending stays the same.

Romney's talking about building more aircraft carriers and submarines than the Navy is even asking for. That's spending that didn't exist before, and that we don't need. Take the money out of foreign wars and put it towards the deficit, don't keep spending it on other shit we still can't afford.

[Coito ergo sum]

Biden said it the other day -- they want at least a $1 trillion tax increase. No details presented, and the numbers don't add up.

"let that trillion dollar tax cut expire"

That expiration is not just for those over $250,000. Don't you understand that? The tax cuts expiring raises all rates, including on the low end taxpayers. That's why if they're claiming only to be raising taxes on those making $250,000 and up, their "numbers don't add up."

Letting a pre-existing cut expire (as it was originally supposed to do in the first place) is not the same as a tax hike. It's reverting to where it was before, and one might point out that the nation was doing pretty well at those rates. It sounds to me like the "details" are there, let the cuts expire. If that's not a trillion dollars, then you have your answer. I still don't have yours about Romney's phantom math.

You think the nation was doing well BECAUSE of higher tax rates?

If the tax cuts expire, it will be a tax hike on all taxpayers -- all of them. Not just $250,000 and up. This is what you need to understand. The Bush tax cuts were not just for those making over $250,000. It was for every single taxpayer. Everyone.

That is nonsense. It's not a spending increase or new spending. He's setting military spending at 4% of GDP. It's Obama spin to call it an increase. Total defense spending (including war spending) stays about the same under Romney, because as war spending drops, that money is shifted to general defense spending, so the total defense spending stays the same.

Romney's talking about building more aircraft carriers and submarines than the Navy is even asking for. That's spending that didn't exist before, and that we don't need. Take the money out of foreign wars and put it towards the deficit, don't keep spending it on other shit we still can't afford.

The point was that he's not increasing spending. It's staying the same for the total defense expenditures including war spending. I can certainly understand that there is another policy question as to whether that total spending should be reduced, which is what Obama wants. That is the fundamental question.

[Wumbologist]

That expiration is not just for those over $250,000. Don't you understand that? The tax cuts expiring raises all rates, including on the low end taxpayers. That's why if they're claiming only to be raising taxes on those making $250,000 and up, their "numbers don't add up."

Obama/Biden have consistently talked about ending the $250k+ cuts without touching the rest. The "trillion dollar" number refers to the total cut, but has only been mentioned once by Biden, maybe twice, but that sounds like it was pulled from the debate transcript. It sounds to me like the logical answer is that the "trillion dollar tax increase" isn't a thing, and Biden mixed up a couple of numbers on the spot during a debate. The only information I can find at all on the topic through searches is coming from the conservative echo chamber basing it off this one soundbite.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Romney has consistently told us about his tax plan where a tax cut fixes the deficit, has stuck by his words, and the answer has repeatedly been that it's mathematically impossible. So now that I have addressed the supposed "trillion dollar increase", I expect that with the ample time you've spent delaying the answer, you've been hard at work doing the math to prove to me that Romney's tax plan works.

You think the nation was doing well BECAUSE of higher tax rates?

If the tax cuts expire, it will be a tax hike on all taxpayers -- all of them. Not just $250,000 and up. This is what you need to understand. The Bush tax cuts were not just for those making over $250,000. It was for every single taxpayer. Everyone.

I think the nation was doing well with the rates as they were (not because of, don't put words in my mouth), and the cuts did not grow the economy to the level they were promised to. I think now is probably not the time to expire the cuts on the middle class, as they currently have enough on their plate, but nobody is suggesting that, as much as you'd like us to believe from a single soundbite. The $250k+ can handle the tax cuts expiring, and the reality is that we need to bring in more revenue from somewhere.

The point was that he's not increasing spending. It's staying the same for the total defense expenditures including war spending. I can certainly understand that there is another policy question as to whether that total spending should be reduced, which is what Obama wants. That is the fundamental question.

Obama is decreasing war spending and not increasing defense spending. I think that's a good thing. I see no reason why we need to keep wasting that kind of money once we're out of Afghan.

[Gerald McGrew]

So wait....CES are you actually arguing that Obama/Biden are campaigning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone? Or are you arguing that it's impossible to allow the cuts to expire for those making over $250k while maintaining the cuts for everyone else?

[Warren Dew]

That expiration is not just for those over $250,000. Don't you understand that? The tax cuts expiring raises all rates, including on the low end taxpayers. That's why if they're claiming only to be raising taxes on those making $250,000 and up, their "numbers don't add up."

Obama/Biden have consistently talked about ending the $250k+ cuts without touching the rest. The "trillion dollar" number refers to the total cut, but has only been mentioned once by Biden, maybe twice, but that sounds like it was pulled from the debate transcript. It sounds to me like the logical answer is that the "trillion dollar tax increase" isn't a thing, and Biden mixed up a couple of numbers on the spot during a debate. The only information I can find at all on the topic through searches is coming from the conservative echo chamber basing it off this one soundbite.

I think it's more likely Biden would like to let the entirety of the cuts expire.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Romney has consistently told us about his tax plan where a tax cut fixes the deficit, has stuck by his words, and the answer has repeatedly been that it's mathematically impossible. So now that I have addressed the supposed "trillion dollar increase", I expect that with the ample time you've spent delaying the answer, you've been hard at work doing the math to prove to me that Romney's tax plan works.

To the contrary, when you take into account the effects on the economy, the math works fine.

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/70589.html

Obama is decreasing war spending and not increasing defense spending. I think that's a good thing. I see no reason why we need to keep wasting that kind of money once we're out of Afghan.

The Obama/Pelosi defense cuts go well beyond beyond war spending.

[Coito ergo sum]

So wait....CES are you actually arguing that Obama/Biden are campaigning on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone? Or are you arguing that it's impossible to allow the cuts to expire for those making over $250k while maintaining the cuts for everyone else?

No. I'm saying that Biden said they really do want a $1,000,000,000,000 tax cut, and that that number does not work out if you ONLY increase the taxes on those making over $250k.

I'm arguing that it's impossible to raise taxes by a $1trillion and not raise taxes on people making less than $250k per year.

Now, either Biden wasn't serious about the $1 trillion or they aren't going to raise a $1 trillion in taxes. maybe that's not their number. But, if you allow for that kind of flexibility in analyzing Obama/Biden's statements, then you can't be more rigid when evaluating Romney. He is not campaigning on a $5 trillion tax cut. That is a number being attributed to him. That isn't his number. Yet everyone keeps saying that because the Tax Policy Institute ASSUMES that to be his number, then it must be his number.

Well, if he is saddled by the number $5 trillion, then it is no less appropriate to saddle Biden with the $1 trillion. See? Now make the numbers work. But don't just require it of one candidate.

For me -- I'm willing to let Biden off the hook with a "nevermind" if he says he really isn't after a $1 trillion tax hike, and he only wants "whatever he can get from those over $250k" -- that is, if he will say that (which he hasn't) and if you believe him (which I sure as shit don't, but that all depends on one's point of view).

Same thing with Romney -- he says $5 trillion isn't his number -- you can believe him, or not. The link Warren provided gives a decent summation of how the numbers can work. Romney has also said that if the 20% tax reduction wouldn't work out with all the deductions, etc., in negotiations with Congress - well the mix might change. He said that in the first debate. He says he won't be specific on the deductions and things that he'll be looking at because that is what happens in the legislative process. I respect that. He gave benchmarks, and he said what his overall goals and requirements were. That is no different than what obama did with Obamacare when he said that all the details were negotiable, as long as certain general criteria were met.

[Tero]

Bring back the death panels. You the patient get to decide the money spent. No rdiculous ventilators after 20 000 is spent on useless "cures." Panel signs deal, has to pull the plug.

[Gerald McGrew]

No. I'm saying that Biden said they really do want a $1,000,000,000,000 tax cut, and that that number does not work out if you ONLY increase the taxes on those making over $250k.

I'm arguing that it's impossible to raise taxes by a $1trillion and not raise taxes on people making less than $250k per year.

So I'm assuming your first sentence is a misstatement and you really mean a $1 trillion tax increase.

So over what time period was Biden talking about raising $1 trillion in new revenues?

[hadespussercats]

CES, regarding this comment: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 1#p1294201 --
You have recently received several reminders to play nice, but you seem to have forgotten.
This is a warning from the staff to follow our forum rules in all your posts.
Thank you.

[Pappa]

Yeah, nobody was discussing what Obamacare would entail during the year or so before it was passed. We just found out all that stuff when it was signed. Sure, nobody was talking about the details then, nosiree bob. Except for Republicans talking about death panels and a big government takeover.

I think you may be genuinely delusional sometimes. I really do. You're just telling yourself what you want to believe, and re-writing history to boot; your Pelosi quote is out of context, as usual.

As for Romney's tax plan, I can understand your frustration. Those darn nonpartisan tax policy analysts are always obfuscating the truth when it comes to Republican math.

Ian, this is a reminder to please play nice, as per our rules.