The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Oh, I see. You're too lazy to look up the companies Romney destroyed with his evil Bain leveraged buyout scheme.
That's the only thing you'll accept?
Fuck you, you aren't calling the shots, boy.

If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.

Would you just accept a smear against Obama, that couldn't be backed up? Of course not.

Don't be such a hypocrite, and try harder to stay civil. Of course I call the shots on what I will accept as a fact. You do the same for yourself.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.

Yet....

You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).

I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.

That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.

Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".

If there is some specific part about it that you don't understand, ask away, and I'll try to help. On a forum, I can't go whole hog on big topics however. The forum has a size limit on posts, and I have bumped up against it, a few times.

The point of the "high bar", is that the data you'd need to prove or to disprove the smear against Romney while at Bain, is NOT available. Which is why it's such a great target for a smear by the Obama campaign. THAT is the point of the "high bar", to bring this point into focus.

IF the data was readily available, don't you think that Obama's campaign would be shouting the numbers in every ad, all across the country? That's why you can be sure that the data is not there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".

Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

snip--

Yes, I realize President Obama was just trying to make an illustration of a point. It has just struck a nerve on the military boards

At the risk of sounding like a kindergartener, Romney started it. It was Romney who chose 1917 as the date to compare a single fact about our military then and now. Romney had been playing Chicken Little all night, fearmongering, and he piled on by comparing the number of ships in our navy then and now, a factually useless comparison. Great for stoking the fires of fear, but nothing else. Obama gave him back what he was giving everyone else--context free facts.

Why do you think Romney used that particular figure? I think it was to be melodramatic. And he got the melodrama he was searching for.

[Lamplighter]

During the debate last night, Romney said (for some unknown reason):
"I like women... "

My G-son finished his sentence...
... because they are the right height."

[BigV]

Tax cut for everyone,
same proprtion of taxes paid by those who earn in the top 5%
eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest
adding a trillion dollars to the defense budget
"absolutely" not adding any taxes to the middle class of earners who make under $200k/yr
and
...drumroll please.....
balance the budget.

Originally Posted by Adak

That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.

You're saying this was covered a few pages back... right. I looked. Maybe you mean this one:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Brookings Tax Policy Center article

Somewhere else I read that the Romney deficit reduction and budget balancing assumptions are based upon "possible" and "potential" economic upturns. So...if I were to make a million dollars a year, I could get out of debt very quickly. A bank will not give me a loan based on that "assumption", but it's ok for our entire nation's economic well-being?

Or this one:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

BigV, follow the link for the answer.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssible/263541/

Edit: A second article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-tax-plan.html

Basically, you assume unrealistic job growth or you change the definition of the middle class...

I did read those posts and the articles at the links, but none of them do what you say they do. I'd like to see your cite, or better yet, just explain to me how he can do all those things he said he's gonna do. Because,

Originally Posted by Adak

If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.

It doesn't exist.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.

Are these statements true or false, in your judgement?

1) gov't takes more money in taxes. I have less $$$ , my small or large business has less, so I spend less $$$, and my business spends less also.

2) gov't takes less money in taxes. I have more $$$, my small or large business has more $$$, so I spend more $$$ , and my business spends more also.

If they're both true, then I can have reasonable discourse with you. If not, then I can not. I have no connection with your reality.

Your Answer?

[Adak]

@BigV:

Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. The Egyptians used it when Israel was hit by famine, and had to relocate to Egypt to survive, if you remember.

Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?

Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry. If you haven't seen a recovery take off, I can tell you it's a wonderfully giddy thing, imo.

Would you mind if I linked you to a notable gov't economist for an oversight on how and why this works?

It won't make you like Romney, because Romney isn't mentioned. It's all about economic policy in a capitalist system.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.

Would you just accept a smear against Obama, that couldn't be backed up? Of course not.

Don't be such a hypocrite, and try harder to stay civil. Of course I call the shots on what I will accept as a fact. You do the same for yourself.

Not a smear when the fact that it happened is well documented.
A fifth grader can figure out if you grab a business and suck the life out of it until it goes belly up, people are out of work. The people suffer, the families suffer, the community suffers, because some predatory millionaires/billionaires need more money? No, they don't need money, it's just a blood sport.

Oh, and stop telling me what the fuck to do, I'm not one of you Morman sheep.

[BigV]

I'm not angry Adak. Not with you anyhow. I'm angry that Romney's successfully lying about what he can promise. It is this deception that angers me. I am calling him on it. I'm not asking for a "reasonable" projection, I'd settle for a possible projection, within the parameters he himself set. It doesn't add up.

Furthermore, your "high standard" is a good one, and one that could fairly be applied to Romney's tax plan, since he's touting his economic savoir-faire. I'm a reasonably smart guy, I can understand stuff, explain it to me, I have asked. You're his only surrogate here, so the question falls to you. There are lots of naysayers, ones whose arguments appear sound to me. I have not heard any argument from you in support of his plans. His desires, sure. His platitudes, sure. But that's not a plan. "I'm going to create 12 million new jobs" is not a plan. Tell me the PLAN. What is your PLAN?

This has not happened, absolutely not from Romney regarding his tax plan. What deductions? How does it add up? These kinds of questions. You and I both know why he won't say so. He won't say so because it doesn't add up. And by specifically identifying x or y or z, he opens himself to resistance from those people who *like* x or y or z. He won't expose himself to that. But it's still not a plan.

"We need to get jobs back from China."

"On day one I'll label China a currency manipulator."

When pronounced in close proximity to each other, the second one sounds like a step toward achieving the second one. But for anyone who knows what the second one entails, there's no support for the first one. These kind of pastel platitudes are useless as policies, though they can be effective to activate people's emotions. That's why he does this. He's campaigning, promising. I get that, and more power to him. But what he's promising can not be delivered.

I will not abide his lies.

[BigV]

The majority of the candidate's income last year came from his investments: capital gains ($6.8 million), taxable interest ($3 million) and dividends ($3.7 million).

In addition, Romney reported $450,470 in business income.

--snip--

The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.

Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.

Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?

According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.

How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.

You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

Experts have questioned whether someone with Malt's close ties to Romney could oversee the candidate's finances with true independence. In addition to serving as the trustee for Romney's charitable foundation, Malt's law firm has represented Romney's interests in legal disputes, and Malt served as the primary outside counsel to Romney's company, Bain Capital. A sign of those ties surfaced in August, when Romney filed his financial disclosure report and revealed that Malt had invested over $1 million of the candidate's money in the Solamere Founders Fund. Solamere is managed by Tagg Romney, Mitt's son.

In an email to ABC News, Romney's campaign acknowledged the arrangement does not live up to the strict standards for blind trusts established by the federal Office of Government Ethics. But the campaign was also quick to note that those rules do not apply to candidates for office -- they apply only to federal office holders.

link

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

link

Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.

Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.

You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery. The speed will be slowed down by the recession in Europe and by the recent slow down in the Chinese economy. But unlike today, when we know we have 11.9 million manufacturing jobs, versus 12.4 million in '2009, and the dow dropped 240 points and is expecting a "down" 4th quarter*, things will begin to REALLY look up.

Remember what that felt like?

*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.

[BigV]

I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry.

You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery.

I think I know what somebody wants for Christmas!








A cracker.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, proving Romney, and you, lied about the blind trust is being snarky?
Cool, be prepared for a lot more snark.