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

[Wumbologist]

Whether or not the Democrats are doing it the way you think they should, doesn't make Romney's tax plan any less mathematically impossible.

it's only mathematically impossible if you mischaracterize his plan and leave out parts of it.

Enlighten me. Go ahead and show me the math that the man himself has been dodging.

[Wumbologist]

By the way, it seemed Romney was taking a harder stance on the Syria issue last night than he or Ryan has previously in the debates. Anyone else think he'll put boots on the ground there, and if so, how big of a tax cut is he going to give us to pay for it?

[kiki5711]

Debt held by the public relative to GDP rose rapidly again in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic policies lowered tax rates and increased military spending, while congressional Democrats blocked attempts to reverse spending on social programs.[14][15] As a result, debt as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 40.9% in 1988, and continued to rise during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, reaching 48.3% of GDP in 1992.[12][16]

Debt held by the public reached 49.5% of GDP at the beginning of President Clinton's first term. However, it fell to 34.5% of GDP by the end of Clinton's presidency due in part to decreased military spending, increased taxes (in 1990, 1993 and 1997), and increased tax revenue resulting from the Dot-com bubble.[12][13][17][18][19] The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses at the end of the decade.[20]

[u]In the early 21st century, debt relative to GDP rose again due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused by the wars in the Middle East.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, debt held by the public increased from $3.339 trillion in September 2001 to $6.369 trillion by the end of 2008,[/u][6][21][quote] In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis,




The CBO has summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[23][24]

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)

$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases

$1.5 trillion – Increased defense baseline budget and non-defense discretionary spending under both the Bush and Obama administrations

$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

$1.4 trillion – Incremental interest due to higher debt balances

$0.9 trillion – Stimulus and tax cuts since 2008 (Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[24]

Several other sources have used CBO data to summarize the results in various ways.[25][26][27]

In the 2005 Mid-Session Review this had changed to a projected four-year deficit of $851 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion.[78] The latter document states that 49% of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29% was due to "tax relief" (mainly the Bush Tax Cuts), and the remaining 22% was due to "war, homeland, and other enacted legislation" (mainly expenditures for the War on Terror, Iraq War, and homeland security).

tax relief to the rich
wars and other expenses associated with war

basically self explanatory.

in the mean time the so called "free market" corporations take our jobs overseas, we lose jobs, cannot contribute to the tax pool, but rather become dependent on the safety net which is an expenditure from the tax pool not a contribution. And so, the cycle of madness begins.

[kiki5711]

Clinton:

No one could fix mess in 4 years; but policies are working

Are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? Of course not. But are we better off than we were when Obama took office? The economy was in freefall. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today? The answer is yes.

A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing. But too many people do not feel it yet. I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early `95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it. But the difference this time is purely in the circumstances. Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president--not me, not any of my predecessors--no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. But he has laid the foundations. And if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Whether or not the Democrats are doing it the way you think they should, doesn't make Romney's tax plan any less mathematically impossible.

it's only mathematically impossible if you mischaracterize his plan and leave out parts of it.

Enlighten me. Go ahead and show me the math that the man himself has been dodging.

I'll do it when you show me the math behind Obama's $1 trillion tax increase, that he and Biden are calling for.

[Wumbologist]

Whether or not the Democrats are doing it the way you think they should, doesn't make Romney's tax plan any less mathematically impossible.

it's only mathematically impossible if you mischaracterize his plan and leave out parts of it.

Enlighten me. Go ahead and show me the math that the man himself has been dodging.

I'll do it when you show me the math behind Obama's $1 trillion tax increase, that he and Biden are calling for.

Nice dodge, been taken lessons from Mittens?

[Ian]

I'd call Coito a chicken, but that might remind him too much of Big Bird, and we can't have that.

WHat is the math behind a tax increase? The math is simple enough - I take it you're just wondering how it's justified? If you don't know where that proposal is coming from, ask yourself how often you've griped about the debt/deficit. Or do you just want to kep talking about how the Democrats just keep printing money and don't care about such things...

[Coito ergo sum]

No, just illustrating the point that you folks don't give hoot about "details" UNLESS it's being asked of Romney. I'm kind of tired of one way conversations where people ask me to do a bunch of work, and then when I ask for the same courtesy in return, I get nothing. If you want something from me, post something specific an detailed as to Obama's plan, and why you support it (other than him being Wonder Boy Obama and all).

[Ian]

Chicken.

[Coito ergo sum]

Chicken.

Regardless, the point still stands.

[Ian]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

[Wumbologist]

No, just illustrating the point that you folks don't give hoot about "details" UNLESS it's being asked of Romney. I'm kind of tired of one way conversations where people ask me to do a bunch of work, and then when I ask for the same courtesy in return, I get nothing. If you want something from me, post something specific an detailed as to Obama's plan, and why you support it (other than him being Wonder Boy Obama and all).

I'm assuming that when you talk about a "trillion dollar tax increase", you're referring to the plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250,000+ incomes? Unfortunately, in large part owing to the two wars launched around the same time, that cut is unsustainable. Does it suck for those unfortunate souls making that much? I'm sure it does. But we can't keep pretending that we can get more stuff with less tax and the math will somehow work, which is exactly what the Romney campaign is claiming but won't back up.

[Wumbologist]

No, your point is "Oh c'mon, you guys are just as bad... I just know it!"

You can't provide examples, though - at least not anything that we haven't shot down in flames. Yesterday you mentioned Obamacare as Exhibit A, neglecting to mention how frickin' overloaded with details THAT thing is. You're just going off what you want to believe, your treasured False Balance. YOU are the one who doesn't give a damn about details.

Let's not forget that Obamacare is modeled after the MA health care system, which Romney championed and still backs as working excellently....

[Tero]

Kid Rock had Ryan ruin a guitar. You can now win it.
http://www.mittromney.com/forms/kid-roc ... ontent=wmr

[Warren Dew]

I'm assuming that when you talk about a "trillion dollar tax increase", you're referring to the plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on $250,000+ incomes? Unfortunately, in large part owing to the two wars launched around the same time, that cut is unsustainable.

The Bush tax cuts, far from being unsustainable, led to the largest annual tax revenues in the history of the United States, with four consecutive years of growth to a high that beat the previous high by 30% after the tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003:



Yeah, another one of those pesky facts. Fortunately, it's against the leftist religion to acknowledge facts.