• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The mantle of leadership has shifted: Romney/Ryan govern in all but name

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I guess the operative word in your post is "liberal." I would change that to say "progressive."

Relying on Ezra Klein as a source means you not only have drunk the Kool-Aid, you have had so much that you might as well be Mr. Kool-Aid.



Who is Ezra Klein? Some excerpts from the Wiki entry on hisself -



Unbiased source not found.
LOL....learn to read?

Ezra Klein wrote the article, he didn't provide the quote. That came from the TAx Policy center, who analyzed Romney's budget claims.

So epic fail on your part (once again)?

Once again, care to comment on the analysis of his budget being impossible? Try to use some facts this time please.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
It doesn't occur to you that this is a classic strawman? They have set up imputed rent income as a tax break - something NO conservative or non-progressive would ever do - and then knocked it down by suggesting that since Romney would not eliminate it, his plan is not feasible. My point - and I really don't think it's that difficult to follow - was that only the very hardest left would consider not taxing someone for the rent they don't pay on their own home to be a tax break. Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.

This isn't an evaluation of Romney's plan, it's merely a furtherance of the Tax Policy Center's central theme, that the only workable alternative is always to tax more and spend more. Making up details and shooting them down should make that amply clear to all.
Sure, got it, anyone who disagrees with your party on anything is obviously a flaming liberal. Lulz.

Again, I haven't spent a lot of time on this, so kindly fill in the blanks if I'm missing something. As I see it, this is fundamentally a math problem. Romney wants to lower tax rates while eliminating deductions and exclusions. TPC simply tried to make that work by finding one dollar in additional deduction/exclusion income for each dollar of rate reduction. Reductions in column A, increases in column B, make them match. Simple. So the challenge becomes find every possible deduction or exclusion that can be added to column B to offset Romney's proposed rate cuts.

They apparently couldn't find enough. They noted that imputed income is unlikely to be taxed, and is therefore a non-factor. It DOES NOT offset any rate reduction. That's all. Saying they suggested "that since Romney would not eliminate it, his plan is not feasible" is pure nonsense. They just did the math. Imputed income is not part of it. What about that is unreasonable?

More to the point given your ranting, how is that their fault? They can't just invent stuff to add to column B to make Romney's plan magically work. If you're suggesting they ignored other, more viable increases then by all means call them out. Otherwise, your complaint is totally irrational.


Edit: As far as this little rage is concerned:
Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.
WTF difference would it make? None of them are on the table either. None of them would put any more dollars in column B, just as imputed rent income doesn't. The only difference is that nobody has proposed those others be taxed, whereas at one point someone did propose imputed rent as a potential tax. Others proposed it, TPC therefore included it in their analysis, TPC rejected it as a non-starter. There's nothing to see here, move along.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
LOL....learn to read?

Ezra Klein wrote the article, he didn't provide the quote. That came from the TAx Policy center, who analyzed Romney's budget claims.

So epic fail on your part (once again)?

Once again, care to comment on the analysis of his budget being impossible? Try to use some facts this time please.
Read the study, did not find.

How about if you find "mathematically impossible" in the doc and point me to it.

Maybe I blinked and missed it.

But, there is a sentence that could conceivably be what Ezra "Journolista" Klein may have been basing his own article on.

As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above.
My guess, having read the entire study, is that Klein did not and he is cherry picking phrases (wrongly quoted) not reflecting either the premise nor the very, very limited conclusions of the authors.

Like I said above, you might or might not want to accept their assumptions - I certainly wouldn't, they stray too far afield - but, even if you do, you have to qualify that by saying it applies only to a small part of Romney's plan and only under the conditions the authors stipulate - making this a worthless, pedantic exercise.

And as the authors say, and which the über partisan Klein fails to acknowledge,

We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Bush was a big spender, Obama beats him at this hands down.

Bush added to the size of government, Obama has been on steroids.

The government can and has to be whittled down so that is sucks down much fewer resources.

I liked Romney's turnaround creds and that he took in a lot of Ryan's policy ideas even before choosing as his running mate. His priorities align much more closely to my own preferences than Bush's did.

That he chose a guy like Ryan, a fiscal hawk - THE point man for cutting government down to size - is why I am on board with Team Romney/Ryan now.
That's why Obama's budget increases have been the smallest of any modern president.

Oops.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
That's why Obama's budget increases have been the smallest of any modern president.

Oops.
What budget?

Do you mean his proposed budgets?

The Congress unanimously rejects Obama's budgets and then fails to pass their own. More accurately, Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate do not pass budgets as required by law.

Last I heard it has been over 1,100 days since the Senate passed a budget.

The government continues to spend hand over fist and approximately 40% of what it spends is borrowed dollars, but budget not found.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Apparently the OP has yet to figure out how inanly foolish this little one man full court press has become. Stop posting..

Edit: It's.always pure comedic gold when u hold up your "I'm not retarded stop attacking me shield!" At least you have one fan...
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
What budget?

Do you mean his proposed budgets?

The Congress unanimously rejects Obama's budgets and then fails to pass their own. More accurately, Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate do not pass budgets as required by law.

Last I heard it has been over 1,100 days since the Senate passed a budget.

The government continues to spend hand over fist and approximately 40% of what it spends is borrowed dollars, but budget not found.
You know that the rejection is a political charade, much like the entire Republican party.

But his deficits have increased at the lowest rate in modern history, something that belies your idiotic post about him spending so much money.

The money was spent by Bush and now people like you who bitch about pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan, rolling back the military, DHS and Medicare D and eliminating the Bush tax cuts are the ones who put him into the trap. You are a fucking joke.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
Apparently the OP has yet to figure out how inanly foolish this little one man full court press has become. Stop posting..

Edit: It's.always pure comedic gold when u hold up your "I'm not retarded stop attacking me shield!" At least you have one fan...
Haven't seen you post anything rational, much less worth reading, since I got back.

What's holding you back?
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Romney has a plan to fix taxes so that theyre fair. Thats why he had offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes, and refuses to release more than a years worth of tax returns.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
You know that the rejection is a political charade, much like the entire Republican party.
You do know that it is the Democrats that either fail to bring up Obama's "budgets" for a vote or reject them unanimously? Don't you?

But his deficits have increased at the lowest rate in modern history, something that belies your idiotic post about him spending so much money.
Is this the chart you are referring to?



The money was spent by Bush and now people like you who bitch about pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan, rolling back the military, DHS and Medicare D and eliminating the Bush tax cuts are the ones who put him into the trap.
I hear Xanax helps.

You are a fucking joke.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Try some real numbers....


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

It's funny how people like you get duhverted from the real issue that caused the deficit.

I know, numbers are hard. Here is a nice graph for you. Do you need stick figures too?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490

Read up chuckles.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
 
Last edited:

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Haven't seen you post anything rational, much less worth reading, since I got back.
Same applies to you my friend though I am able to accomplish it with more brevity! You have this same skill set but it takes you much, much longer to achieve the same goal! :)
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Read the study, did not find.

How about if you find "mathematically impossible" in the doc and point me to it.

Maybe I blinked and missed it.

But, there is a sentence that could conceivably be what Ezra "Journolista" Klein may have been basing his own article on.



My guess, having read the entire study, is that Klein did not and he is cherry picking phrases (wrongly quoted) not reflecting either the premise nor the very, very limited conclusions of the authors.

Like I said above, you might or might not want to accept their assumptions - I certainly wouldn't, they stray too far afield - but, even if you do, you have to qualify that by saying it applies only to a small part of Romney's plan and only under the conditions the authors stipulate - making this a worthless, pedantic exercise.

And as the authors say, and which the über partisan Klein fails to acknowledge,
LOL, it is ironic that the master of posting op-ed's and claiming they are factual (as opposed to opinions) complains about other posts, claiming bias by the author of the article I posted.

It is even more ironic that you criticized the author given that he was just pointing out the facts of the analysis a real third party did on his tax plan, so it wasn't Klein's analysis at all. But I guess you are so used to posting op-ed's yourself, you didn't realize that there were real facts and analysis done. Understandable I guess with your reluctance to use facts.

And the trifecta is that then you refuse to accept any analysis of the plan, preferring to instead rely on your op-ed's as "facts" again.

Quite the trifecta you go going....are you sure you don't get paid by the line to post here?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
It doesn't occur to you that this is a classic strawman? They have set up imputed rent income as a tax break - something NO conservative or non-progressive would ever do - and then knocked it down by suggesting that since Romney would not eliminate it, his plan is not feasible. My point - and I really don't think it's that difficult to follow - was that only the very hardest left would consider not taxing someone for the rent they don't pay on their own home to be a tax break. Why not imputed health income, where people who do not have expensive chronic illnesses are taxed for the money they don't spend treating those illnesses? Why not imputed sobriety income, where people who aren't not alcoholics are taxed for the money they don't spend on drink? Surely good health and sobriety are valuable assets.

This isn't an evaluation of Romney's plan, it's merely a furtherance of the Tax Policy Center's central theme, that the only workable alternative is always to tax more and spend more. Making up details and shooting them down should make that amply clear to all.
*smacks forehead*
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY