Last Night's Debate.......

[gmhr1]

Happy Anniversary, the beginning of the END! I wonder if Obama has always been a liar or is it something he learned as Pres. He is talking today and all he can talk about is Romneys 5 trillion dollars is he deaf? He has his teleprompter he gives a great speach he just cant speak for himself.

[Buzz]

I was shocked to hear that Romney wasn't going to cut my taxes.

[Blackstone]

Then you were not listening.
Romney was quite specific for the alotted time on his plans for "kick starting" the economy!
I am 100% confident Romney can do what he said.
I am equally convinced Obama can not!

You know what, so are you!

I was listening. Romney said he would reduce the deficit by lowering tax rates and eliminating tax credits and loopholes. He said what rate he would reduce business taxes to, but not what he would reduce my rates to. Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar. He eliminated tax credits for interest paid on credit cards, car and boat loans, etc. That translated into a tax increase for people like me. Those that could afford it simply moved to other tax shelters and loopholes, so they weren't really impacted.

Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.

[Buzz]

Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.

This is where Obama really let him off the hook. Romney said he won't cut taxes for the rich. He said he won't raise taxes on the struggling middle class. But he kept mentioning "broadening the tax base." This is where Obama could have hit him hard. He could have stated that these are code words for increasing taxes on that 47% he talked about behind closed doors.

[huntinman]

I was listening. Romney said he would reduce the deficit by lowering tax rates and eliminating tax credits and loopholes. He said what rate he would reduce business taxes to, but not what he would reduce my rates to. Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar. He eliminated tax credits for interest paid on credit cards, car and boat loans, etc. That translated into a tax increase for people like me. Those that could afford it simply moved to other tax shelters and loopholes, so they weren't really impacted.

Obama kept saying Romney's plan wouldn't work because there weren't enough tax loopholes to close on the wealthiest Americans to offset the reduced revenues from the tax cuts proposed. He is correct. The math doesn't work. So, if he can't make it work by eliminating tax credits and loopholes only on the wealthy, what is he going to eliminate? Am I going to lose the ability to deduct mortgage interest and property tax? That would translate into a huge tax increase for me. So, I would like to know.

Roney said last night, but libs don't want to hear or believe it...

The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...

[huntinman]

This is where Obama really let him off the hook. Romney said he won't cut taxes for the rich. He said he won't raise taxes on the struggling middle class. But he kept mentioning "broadening the tax base." This is where Obama could have hit him hard. He could have stated that these are code words for increasing taxes on that 47% he talked about behind closed doors.

Obama does not want to bring up old videos... that is a loser for him. Are you kidding? With all the tape surfacing of Obama sounding like the second coming of Malcom X? I hope he brings up old videos...

[Buzz]

The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...

So what you're saying is:

[Gerry Clinchy]

Also, I wanted to know what tax credits he would eliminate. I remember Reagan doing something similar.

Romney proposed a "bucket" of $X (He said the X to be determined). Then everyone gets to deduct up to $X. They get to choose what to put in their bucket: mortgage interest, local taxes, state taxes, etc., but cannot exceed the $X.

He indicated that higher income individuals might have a smaller bucket than the lower income individuals. Perhaps the reasoning there is if you're paying $50,000 in mortgage interest each year, you really don't need more tax relief?

Then one only needs to establish what will be allowed in the "bucket" of deductibles. That will be among the kinds of things that Pres and Congress have to hammer out intelligently.

[Gerry Clinchy]

So what you're saying is:

C'mon, Buzz ... no that's twisting the premise.

Even in Sweden, when they cut spending they were able to lower tax rates ... but it actually increased revenue. The extent to which this premise can continue to work depends on the growth of GDP.

I would imagine that new gas/oil drilling permits being issued on public land would have a big impact on GDP. Keeping in mind that increase in energy production on Obama's watch has only taken place on private land; public land production has decreased.

Crippling coal use before we have something viable to replace it with is not good for the economy either. If you pay more for electricity without having a decent job, where does that leave the 99%.

In fairness, Buzz, if the economy is better in SD than it is in other parts of the country, you may not be close enough to see some of the effects of this administration's policies.

One point I think was GOOD about the debates ... it was about policies, not name-calling. While each of us may feel various videos give insights into the character/beliefs of the candidates, that is not what the debates are supposed to be about. JMHO on that.

[Blackstone]

Roney said last night, but libs don't want to hear or believe it...

The revenue to the gov't will be increased because we will have more people working and paying taxes, even though the rate is lower. It works every time it's tried...

That still doesn't answer my questions. If you believe flood gates are going to open for new jobs just because the tax rate is reduced to 25% from the 28% Obama has proposed, you are kidding yourself. When the Bush era tax reductions went into effect, they were supposed to stimulate job growth. Businesses were going to create more jobs and hire more people. It didn't happen, at least not in this country.

If it works in this case, there will still be a considerable time lapse between when the tax cuts take effect and when new jobs will be created. Where is the revenue going to come from in the meantime? That is why I want to know what tax credits he plans to eliminate. Will it be people like me paying more taxes to make up the shortfall? If so, what happens to my standard of living with less disposable income?