Obama was Unprepared? How Can Anyone Prepare to Debate a Shape-shifter?

[CycloWizard]

I'm not really talking about involvement. I'm talking about investment, specifically.

Those two things go hand in hand. The federal government never gives no-strings-attached money - it micromanages every program that takes that investment. For example,

• NIH's onerous conflict-of-interest policy which applies to every single researcher at any institution receiving a single dollar from NIH including those not receiving NIH funding;
• Setting the legal drinking age to 21 if you want federal highway funds; and
• Federal education funds tied to following ridiculous "standards" that have nothing to do with learning or effective education methods.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. There is no such thing as federal investment devoid of federal involvement. The investment is chased with bureaucracy equal to or greater than the investment itself.

 

[FerrelGeek]

It was pretty easy to see he was unprepared; even in those instances in which he spoke first, like the freaking closing statement, he seemed to flounder.

My wife thought he sounded more like a kid running for student council president in his closing address.

Obama was unprepared because, quite frankly, he's lazy. He's been made lazy by much of the media giving him a free pass the last 4 years. He's not used to being challenged and his performance clearly showed that. He'd rather go to Vegas than go back to DC and deal with the aftermath of the attacks on 9/11. He'd rather meet with the harpies on The View than with world leaders. His whole demeanor the night of the debate was one of 'why do I have to put up with this?' Sorry libs, but your guy was just plain pathetic.

No worries though. The town hall style debate should play into his pandering strength.

 

[Fern]

well, the truth is that the Romney policy would very well cost 5 trillion over 10 years...but that leaves out "assumed" revenue and cost deduction, readjusting the tax brackets...whatever.

No, it's not the truth.

There isn't sufficient detail to in any way prove that $5T amount.

And that's a tactical problem in a debate that Obama 'stepped in'.

All the person need do, Romney in this case, is claim that their objective is revenue neutral. You look like a fool, as Obama did, standing there arguing with them about what their objective is. You can't prove it and it makes it look like you're calling them liar. Not a position you want to be in during a Presidential debate.

Now, it would be a whole 'nother matter if that had been scored by the CBO.

the problem for Romney is that he has no details as to what he will do about that, and the only thing that doesn't make his policy cost 5 trillion is that analysts have to make assumptions as to how it will most likely not cost 5 trillion. And that is true, I think--but we're only stuck with something Romney is not detailing, and what outside analysts assume will have to happen to make it not cost that much.

True.

And the reality is that any President essentially only gets to provide some rough parameters, such as rates and net costs, and Congress ends up ironing out the details. And I think that identifying those parameters are all that a Presidential candidate need campaign on.

Fern

 

[Schmide]

No, it's not the truth.

There isn't sufficient detail to in any way prove that $5T amount.

I read the Washington Post. They did a pretty good analysis of it front page today.

The reality is he either has to back off his 20% tax cut across the board or admit to deficit tax policy.

Edit:

 

[dank69]

No, it's not the truth.

There isn't sufficient detail to in any way prove that $5T amount.

And that's a tactical problem in a debate that Obama 'stepped in'.

All the person need do, Romney in this case, is claim that their objective is revenue neutral. You look like a fool, as Obama did, standing there arguing with them about what their objective is. You can't prove it and it makes it look like you're calling them liar. Not a position you want to be in during a Presidential debate.

Now, it would be a whole 'nother matter if that had been scored by the CBO.

...

That's some bullshit Fern. Obama was talking about one specific part of Romney's plan, not his overall objective. That part is estimated to lower revenue by $5T. In order for Romney to meet his objective, he has to make that up somehow. You are giving Romney a free pass for saying all the tax cuts he wants to implement won't equal a $5T reduction in revenue just because he claims he can make it up by closing loopholes?

 

[Fern]

I read the Washington Post. They did a pretty good analysis of it front page today.

The reality is he either has to back off his 20% tax cut across the board or admit to deficit tax policy.
-snip-

No. The (vague) 'get rid of loopholes' thingy applies here.

Basically Romney's plan is to lower rates and repeal some deductions and/or loopholes to keep it revenue neutral. In political and professional discussions about tax policy this is common orthodoxy. I.e., the majority tout such a plan. We've quietly had ongoing discussions in Washington DC between political staff and businesses (CFOs etc.) for some time now and what Romney appears to be proposing is their consensus. Many businesses aren't
necessarily lobbying for a tax decrease, instead what they want is simplification and a broader/flatter tax system (i.e., lower rates, less loopholes and simplification)

We're well past time for a major revision of the tax code. Professionals know it. The business community knows it. The tax staff in DC knows. I think we could have had it worked out by now if not for Obama playing football with the "rich".

Fern

 

[Fern]

That's some bullshit Fern. Obama was talking about one specific part of Romney's plan, not his overall objective. That part is estimated to lower revenue by $5T. In order for Romney to meet his objective, he has to make that up somehow. You are giving Romney a free pass for saying all the tax cuts he wants to implement won't equal a $5T reduction in revenue just because he claims he can make it up by closing loopholes?

No.

Look, as I posted previously all you are doing is arguing with Romney about what his target is. That's a fool's errand.

I just checked his website and I couldn't find where he specified what his target is. Whatever he says it is, whether it's revenue neutral or some reduction, it will be left up to Congress to iron out. Then it will be submitted to the CBO for scoring. If the CBO estimates it at something other than the target amount, it will be adjusted by Congress. That's how it has always worked.

To pick one part of a comprehensive tax plan and argue about it is stupid. In terms of effect on the budget you need to view the thing in its entirety.

Fern

 

[K1052]

Basically Romney's plan is to lower rates and repeal some deductions and/or loopholes to keep it revenue neutral.

Which ones and/or by how much? I see specific taxes he wants to decrease or eliminate but nothing on how that's going to be revenue neutral by eliminating enough deductions (or spending for that matter) to pay for it.

Romney: "Congress will figure that out."

Now we're the assholes for asking how he intends to make it work?

 

[Schmide]

No. The (vague) 'get rid of loopholes' thingy applies here.

Basically Romney's plan is to lower rates and repeal some deductions and/or loopholes to keep it revenue neutral. In political and professional discussions about tax policy this is common orthodoxy. I.e., the majority tout such a plan. We've quietly had ongoing discussions in Washington DC between political staff and businesses (CFOs etc.) for some time now and what Romney appears to be proposing is their consensus. Many businesses aren't
necessarily lobbying for a tax decrease, instead what they want is simplification and a broader/flatter tax system (i.e., lower rates, less loopholes and simplification)

We're well past time for a major revision of the tax code. Professionals know it. The business community knows it. The tax staff in DC knows. I think we could have had it worked out by now if not for Obama playing football with the "rich".

Fern

If you actually read! They take into account the loopholes. Basically coming to the conclusion that loopholes make up 86billion out of the so 500billion that would make up a 20% across the board tax cut.

It's time to bring back the. There you go with that fuzzy math quote.

 

[WackyDan]

So the idiots in the Obama administration spend months and tons of cash lying in their ads to paint Romney a certain way they think will benefit them with their stupid voters and then act surprised when Mitt doesn't play along in real life? Liberals are far stupider than I ever imagined....and I have one hell of an imagination.

This is actually one of the more spot on comments I've seen.

 

[umbrella39]

This is actually one of the more spot on comments I've seen.

That's saying a lot more about you than u think... 🙄

 

[Fern]

Which ones and/or by how much? I see specific taxes he wants to decrease or eliminate but nothing on how that's going to be revenue neutral by eliminating enough deductions (or spending for that matter) to pay for it.

Romney: "Congress will figure that out."

Now we're the assholes for asking how he intends to make it work?

I wouldn't say "assholes".

Romney already told everyone how he intends to make it work.

It seems to me people are being stupid here. A detailed tax bill (proposal) is going to likely be thousands of pages, depending upon how extensive an overhaul is being proposed. There's no point in the Romney camp doing that. Congress is going to rewrite the sh1t out of it.

Some politicians actually make a specific tax detail part of their. There is something they find objectionable for policy or moral reasons. E.g., we may have some people campaigning on a platform of eliminating the Carried Interest provision or eliminating the specific deduction for companies that move abroad. Romney doesn't appear to be doing that. I.e., he's not making any specific detail into a campaign issue. And I wouldn't think he need do that either. His issue is not which deduction/loophole is morally objectionable, but how many we have to cut or modify to get the target number.

Fern

 

[Fern]

If you actually read! They take into account the loopholes. Basically coming to the conclusion that loopholes make up 86billion out of the so 500billion that would make up a 20% across the board tax cut.

It's time to bring back the. There you go with that fuzzy math quote.

I'm not really following you here. (You have some typos maybe?)

But we're back to square one: Romney's plan lacks detail as the Dems claim. But then they want to turn around and claim that they can quantify it (loopholes and deductions). Look it's either one or the other, it ain't both. And I've been agreeing with them that it is short on details, so you can you easily see where I stand.

Ferbn

 

[CycloWizard]

I have a novel idea: why don't we not assign powers of taxation to the president? Oh wait, that's not a novel idea at all. We've had it since the Constitution was authored.

 

[zinfamous]

No. The (vague) 'get rid of loopholes' thingy applies here.

Basically Romney's plan is to lower rates and repeal some deductions and/or loopholes to keep it revenue neutral. In political and professional discussions about tax policy this is common orthodoxy. I.e., the majority tout such a plan. We've quietly had ongoing discussions in Washington DC between political staff and businesses (CFOs etc.) for some time now and what Romney appears to be proposing is their consensus. Many businesses aren't
necessarily lobbying for a tax decrease, instead what they want is simplification and a broader/flatter tax system (i.e., lower rates, less loopholes and simplification)

aaaaaand that's the point.

Until that stops being "vague," it remains a $5 trillion deficit, period.

I think you are giving voters too much credit, again. 😉

I really don't understand when the economy, and when the tax code, is supposed to be POTUS responsibility? (Tax code, I get, though)

--Historians, economists, analysts: The president of the US largely has no power or influence over the economy.
--Republicans when a Democrat is president: The president is fucking up our economy!
--Democrats when a Democrat is president: You can't pin this on the president! look at what history says, listen to the economists! POTUS can merely shape and encourage policy!
--Democrats when a Republican is president: The president is fucking up our economy!
--Republicans when a Democrat is president: You can't pin this on the president! look at what history says, listen to the economists! POTUS can merely shape and encourage policy!

It's always the same bullshit...so, Fern, when is Congress truly responsible for shaping the tax code and creating jobs? Is it only when Mitt says it is, and he gets a pass on being vague because that really isn't his job; and when jobs are slowly trickling in, that's actually, suddenly, Obama's fault for Obama's failed tax policy that so obviously was his fault?

I'm so confused.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not really following you here. (You have some typos maybe?)

But we're back to square one: Romney's plan lacks detail as the Dems claim. But then they want to turn around and claim that they can quantify it (loopholes and deductions). Look it's either one or the other, it ain't both. And I've been agreeing with them that it is short on details, so you can you easily see where I stand.

Ferbn

exactly. It's either one of the other. And so it remains no less accurate to say that it creates a $5 trillion dollar deficit than it is to say that it is revenue neutral, based on all we have to work with.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

exactly. It's either one of the other. And so it remains no less accurate to say that it creates a $5 trillion dollar deficit than it is to say that it is revenue neutral, based on all we have to work with.

It creates a $5 trillion deficit at worst assuming he does NOTHING to close any loopholes or eliminate any deductions. But given that Romney has said he will, maybe we should look at best case scenario and the other options in between.

$5 trillion is the loss in revenue. It's not a net value.

 

[K1052]

I wouldn't say "assholes".

Romney already told everyone how he intends to make it work.

It seems to me people are being stupid here. A detailed tax bill (proposal) is going to likely be thousands of pages, depending upon how extensive an overhaul is being proposed. There's no point in the Romney camp doing that. Congress is going to rewrite the sh1t out of it.

Some politicians actually make a specific tax detail part of their. There is something they find objectionable for policy or moral reasons. E.g., we may have some people campaigning on a platform of eliminating the Carried Interest provision or eliminating the specific deduction for companies that move abroad. Romney doesn't appear to be doing that. I.e., he's not making any specific detail into a campaign issue. And I wouldn't think he need do that either. His issue is not which deduction/loophole is morally objectionable, but how many we have to cut or modify to get the target number.

Fern

I'd be satisfied if he was a lot more general about what taxes he wanted to eliminate/reduce and said that he and congress will work on a compromise about both that and the modifications to deductions. Instead he has made very specific statements about what taxes he wants to change. I think it is reasonable to require some concrete proposals for the other end of that at this point. This course leads to that obvious question and he's evaded every one and treated the people asking like they're trying to get him in a "gotcha" moment.

There is lots on the tax reduction side but essentially nothing on how make it be revenue neutral. It's like trying to sell only the front half of a car.

 

[Schmide]

I'm not really following you here. (You have some typos maybe?)

But we're back to square one: Romney's plan lacks detail as the Dems claim. But then they want to turn around and claim that they can quantify it (loopholes and deductions). Look it's either one or the other, it ain't both. And I've been agreeing with them that it is short on details, so you can you easily see where I stand.

Ferbn

Ok it starts like this. Romney camp puts the bar at a 20% tax cut for each bracket.

Well that works out to about to a negative 480billiion dollars.

Then they say they can make it review neutral by eliminating loopholes for the rich.

Sure there are a lot of loopholes, good luck finding 480billion of them.

There have been tons of people wanting to eliminate loopholes, but guess what, loopholes benefit constituents. He may wear magic underwear, but no one is going to find enough votes to eliminate so many of them.

You know what's going to happen, every time they put a loophole on the table Grover is going to say that's a tax hike, you can't do that.

 

[Fern]

Ok it starts like this. Romney camp puts the bar at a 20% tax cut for each bracket.

Well that works out to about to a negative 480billiion dollars.

Then they say they can make it review neutral by eliminating loopholes for the rich.

Sure there are a lot of loopholes, good luck finding 480billion of them.

There have been tons of people wanting to eliminate loopholes, but guess what, loopholes benefit constituents. He may wear magic underwear, but no one is going to find enough votes to eliminate so many of them.

You know what's going to happen, every time they put a loophole on the table Grover is going to say that's a tax hike, you can't do that.

I think you're mostly correct here. I.e., more gridlock whether or not Romney is elected.

Until I see a list identifying all deductions and loopholes and their revenue impact quantified I will personally be doubtful of a 20% reduction in rates. Now there may be enough deductions/loopholes to be eliminated so that the rate reduction can be pulled off, but IDK. In the professional literature I read they speak of it as if it is do-able. But they don't get into the specifics of which deductions/loopholes are to be modified or eliminated in the articles. But apparently the groups in Washington have identified them, whether they are politically do-able is whole 'nother matter IMO. Policy wonks are one thing, and Congresspersons needing reelection is another.

Fern

 

[Fern]

aaaaaand that's the point.

Until that stops being "vague," it remains a $5 trillion deficit, period.

I think you are giving voters too much credit, again. 😉

I really don't understand when the economy, and when the tax code, is supposed to be POTUS responsibility? (Tax code, I get, though)

--Historians, economists, analysts: The president of the US largely has no power or influence over the economy.
--Republicans when a Democrat is president: The president is fucking up our economy!
--Democrats when a Democrat is president: You can't pin this on the president! look at what history says, listen to the economists! POTUS can merely shape and encourage policy!
--Democrats when a Republican is president: The president is fucking up our economy!
--Republicans when a Democrat is president: You can't pin this on the president! look at what history says, listen to the economists! POTUS can merely shape and encourage policy!

It's always the same bullshit...so, Fern, when is Congress truly responsible for shaping the tax code and creating jobs? Is it only when Mitt says it is, and he gets a pass on being vague because that really isn't his job; and when jobs are slowly trickling in, that's actually, suddenly, Obama's fault for Obama's failed tax policy that so obviously was his fault?

I'm so confused.

Yes, it is confusing.

And things have been changing. The economy is, under the Constitution, really in Congress's hands. But it seems that more-and-more regulatory power has been concentrated in the Exec branch. Then we've seen a lot more executive orders (or whatever the heck they're called). Regulations and the like strongly affect the economy, so the President if (s)he so chooses can really make a difference (and thus bear responsibility).

Likewise with the tax code - constitutionally that responsibility rests with Congress (and tax bills must start out in the House IIRC). But if a President runs on a tax platform and wins it gives them a mandate of sorts. This typically influences Congress and that's where the President gets his nose into it.

I've been tracking proposed tax legislation professionally now about 3 decades. Some Presidents are invested in more detailed and specific tax proposals. E.g., Reagan had some stuff he was personally interested in (lower rate, shorter depreciation lifetime) and that's going to show up in the bill. Other than a rate reduction and some net revenue target I haven't seen Romney get wedded to any details like some other Presidents.

Fern

 

[PJABBER]

I think you're mostly correct here. I.e., more gridlock whether or not Romney is elected.

Until I see a list identifying all deductions and loopholes and their revenue impact quantified I will personally be doubtful of a 20% reduction in rates. Now there may be enough deductions/loopholes to be eliminated so that the rate reduction can be pulled off, but IDK. In the professional literature I read they speak of it as if it is do-able. But they don't get into the specifics of which deductions/loopholes are to be modified or eliminated in the articles. But apparently the groups in Washington have identified them, whether they are politically do-able is whole 'nother matter IMO. Policy wonks are one thing, and Congresspersons needing reelection is another.

Fern

The Romney/Ryan team will take a win as sufficient mandate to start moving toward a much flatter tax structure and will be making a very aggressive tax reform effort.

I don't believe they are proposing such as part of the campaign but the results they are looking for will, in effect, require a flat tax equivalent.

If the Rs carry the Senate as well as the House, it is going to be very doable, and way overdue.

 

[monovillage]

Obama was not prepared:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p73PZIDQuA

 

[blankslate]

How do you deal with a shapeshifter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Z44BIDPPc&feature=relmfu

It's a good thing Governor Romney is just an android I guess 😛

 

[bradley]

They've been released.

Pretty brilliant. lol