PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney Tax cuts are net tax hikes




acptulsa
10-21-2012, 08:59 AM
Sen. Portman just said on Meet the Press that Romney's voodoo economics do add up because, 'It doesn't just involve tax cuts but also tax reform.'

In other words, the basic tax rate might go down (or might not, remember if he told us the specifics he'd have to shoot us). But he's going to do a deduction reduction that will result in a net, effective, end of the day tax hike for most people. Not that it isn't tempting to have the fedgov stop using deductions to affect our behavior. That always has been an irritating practice. But a net effect tax hike is hardly the way to 'get this economy going again.'

Or am I reading it wrong? Not just tax cuts but tax reform making a thing that doesn't seem to come out even come out even. What else could it possibly mean besides eliminating deductions to enhance revenues--otherwise known as lower rates but fewer deductions adding up to higher taxes?

No wonder he won't give us specifics. Who in his or her right mind would vote for that?

Aratus
10-21-2012, 09:16 AM
two ~~~~~~~~~~words
ourbelovedTeddy ~~~KENNEDY
once*had ~~~HARDcopySlammed
MISTERmultipleChoise ~~~mitt
andwonHIS re~electionBIG

Feeding the Abscess
10-21-2012, 09:48 AM
Rand Paul proposed a 17% flat tax that eliminated several deductions in his budget, with the expressed idea of making everyone pay income tax.

CaptUSA
10-21-2012, 09:59 AM
Romney is so stupid on this... He's trying to fight off the whole class-warfare scare tactics. What he should say is, "Any dollar you increase in taxes is one more dollar taken out of the economy to give to the government. It doesn't matter who you take it from, it will hurt YOU!"

Instead he's caught up playing the progressives' games. What a maroon.

acptulsa
10-21-2012, 10:03 AM
Rand Paul proposed a 17% flat tax that eliminated several deductions in his budget, with the expressed idea of making everyone pay income tax.

Why, yes, a flat tax would eliminate 'several deductions'. What does this have to do with demystifying Romney's secret plan, again?


Romney is so stupid on this... He's trying to fight off the whole class-warfare scare tactics. What he should say is, "Any dollar you increase in taxes is one more dollar taken out of the economy to give to the government. It doesn't matter who you take it from, it will hurt YOU!"

Instead he's caught up playing the progressives' games. What a maroon.

Mr. Big Dig has to play the progressives' game. He's as addicted to power, spending, and kickbacks as any Democrat you can name. That's why we're having so much difficulty seeing the difference between him and Obama--there isn't any.

Aratus
10-21-2012, 10:10 AM
me should bump an old BIG DIG thread, methinks? maybe?

Feeding the Abscess
10-22-2012, 02:12 AM
Why, yes, a flat tax would eliminate 'several deductions'. What does this have to do with demystifying Romney's secret plan, again?


But he's going to do a deduction reduction that will result in a net, effective, end of the day tax hike for most people

Both Rand Paul and Mitt Romney believe in this, as does the vast majority of the Republican party. I'd say they're all out of their minds, but there's a huge constituency for raising taxes on poor and lower middle class people.

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 05:49 AM
Both Rand Paul and Mitt Romney believe in this, as does the vast majority of the Republican party. I'd say they're all out of their minds, but there's a huge constituency for raising taxes on poor and lower middle class people.

There does seem to be. Unfortunately.

jbauer
10-22-2012, 10:19 AM
Rmoney is trying to decrease the tax rate (make the hand and eye motions that he does in the debates) but not decrease government revenue by shutting down deductions and loopholes. The 50,000 ft looking maco-economic idea of that is a flipping wash. No new or net difference in tax receipts or cash left in the hands of purchasers.

What I find truly amazing is that he wants to cut taxes to zero on dividends, interest and capital gains (where the wealthy make their money) and Obama hasn't come after him at all on it. I'd much rather have a flat tax. No deductions, no exceptions. Wages, Social Security, Pensions, IRAs, Capital gains, interest etc etc etc tax them one fair flat rate and get on with it. You could simplify the tax code down to 1 or 2 paragraphs.

jbauer
10-22-2012, 10:21 AM
There does seem to be. Unfortunately.

I think what most of the public wants to see is there isn't anyone who is able to do so getting more tax money via return then what they've even paid into the system. I think everyone should have to pay something even if its $1. What I dispise is paying in $2-3k and getting back 5-6k by the time you've used all your earned income credits, child credits, deductions, excemptions....on and on.

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 12:11 PM
acptulsa,

you fail to understand this isn't a zero sum game. That's exactly why tax reform is so necessary. A less distortionary tax structure, that incentives economic growth (by minimizing political interference in the economics agents choices), will allow that people keep more money in their pockets - a tax cut - while keeping the tax revenue neutral, unchanged for the government.

Tax expenditures (deductions, loopholes, whatever) must go. They serve no other purpose than allowing politicians to pick winners and losers, hence introducing massive ammounts of inneficiency in the economy and stalling growth and productivity. I have no idea how can any libertarian/conservative defend them. Probably a few taxpayers who benefit massively from those loopholes will see their situation worsened - and that's more than fair, they're all rent-seekers. For the very large majority it will get better.

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 12:19 PM
What I find truly amazing is that he wants to cut taxes to zero on dividends, interest and capital gains (where the wealthy make their money) and Obama hasn't come after him at all on it.

Well, maybe you find that amazing because it isn't true.

Romney wants to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains only for taxpayers with an aggregate income below $200,000.

Only in Obama's crazy class welfare world are those people millionaires or wealthy.

Romney says he'll mantain the current tax rates on capital gains, dividends and interest on those making more than $200K. I disagree; but I understand it's a necessary concession because your type of ill-informed demagoguery is so popular.



I'd much rather have a flat tax. No deductions, no exceptions. Wages, Social Security, Pensions, IRAs, Capital gains, interest etc etc etc tax them one fair flat rate and get on with it. You could simplify the tax code down to 1 or 2 paragraphs.

I'm a supporter of flat tax rates too, but unfortunately the Democrats would never allow anything like it.

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 12:27 PM
Why, yes, a flat tax would eliminate 'several deductions'. What does this have to do with demystifying Romney's secret plan, again?






Both Rand Paul and Mitt Romney believe in this, as does the vast majority of the Republican party. I'd say they're all out of their minds, but there's a huge constituency for raising taxes on poor and lower middle class people.



There does seem to be. Unfortunately.

Unfortunately? So, where do you stand?

Are you guys sure you are Ron Paul supporters? I have a hard time believing he'd support any kind of progressive taxation. I bet he prefers to make all revenue dependent on consumption and excise taxes, which are highly regressive (more than an income flat tax like Rand proposes). This is why I have to laugh at those wild theories about Ron Paul hard supporters not voting for Romney because of the RNC and "the way they were treated".

Everybody should pay taxes. If then you want to make the fiscal system progressive, give those people handouts in the form of direct subsidy (ideally money). It's much more transparent and efficient. Again, if you really want or need to - I wouldn't, but welfare isn't going anywhere any time soon, so at least make it as efficient as possible.

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 12:32 PM
acptulsa,

you fail to understand this isn't a zero sum game. That's exactly why tax reform is so necessary. A less distortionary tax structure, that incentives economic growth (by minimizing political interference in the economics agents choices), will allow that people keep more money in their pockets - a tax cut - while keeping the tax revenue neutral, unchanged for the government.

I don't fail to understand the concept of a non-zero sum game. But what Romney is proposing is a zero sum game. A game I can approve of is the Ron Paul plan--eliminate the income tax and all the federal level goofiness it's there to finance. That actually would be an incentive to revenue growth.


Tax expenditures (deductions, loopholes, whatever) must go. They serve no other purpose than allowing politicians to pick winners and losers, hence introducing massive ammounts of inneficiency in the economy and stalling growth and productivity. I have no idea how can any libertarian/conservative defend them. Probably a few taxpayers who benefit massively from those loopholes will see their situation worsened - and that's more than fair, they're all rent-seekers. For the very large majority it will get better.

The stall to growth and productivity isn't the attempts to pick winners and losers (otherwise known as attempts to promote or discourage certain behaviors), but the lever they use to do all of that with--onerous taxation itself. I have no idea how anyone who claims to be 'conservative' can defend that.


Well, maybe you find that amazing because it isn't true.

Romney wants to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains only for taxpayers with an aggregate income below $200,000.

Only in Obama's crazy class welfare world are those people millionaires or wealthy.

Romney says he'll mantain the current tax rates on capital gains, dividends and interest on those making more than $200K. I disagree; but I understand it's a necessary concession because your type of ill-informed demagoguery is so popular.

I'm a supporter of flat tax rates too, but unfortunately the Democrats would never allow anything like it.

And if you had even one foot in the real world, you'd understand that inflation has so eroded wages over the decades that there are people working full time, yet in need of food stamps to make ends meet and keep the lights on. Now, how are these people being so well served by their federal government that they should need to move to the projects as well as take their food stamps just so they don't starve in return for working full time?

Come on across the pond and see what goes on here in the U.S. of A. and maybe you'll be able to address these little practical considerations.


Are you guys sure you are Ron Paul supporters? I have a hard time believing he'd support any kind of progressive taxation. I bet he prefers to make all revenue dependent on consumption and excise taxes...

Yeah? How much?

You're going to come to Ron Paul forums in your ignorance and start making bets about Ron Paul? Outstanding!

How much?


Everybody should pay taxes. If then you want to make the fiscal system progressive, give those people handouts in the form of direct subsidy (ideally money).

Oh, sure. Let you handle the money coming, let you handle the money going, and let you take your cut both directions. Having you as middleman twice in one transaction--that'll solve all our problems! :rolleyes:

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 12:56 PM
I don't fail to understand the concept of a non-zero sum game. But what Romney is proposing is a zero sum game.

No it's not.

If you believe simplifying the tax code and getting rid of loopholes has no effect in the economy, you are wrong.

Eliminating loopholes, tax expenditures and other distortionary elements will not only pay for those tax cuts - it will allow taxpayer to keep more money while keeping the tax revenue neutral because of the economic growth enhanced by a simplified tax structure. Check how countries in Eastern Europe and Asia who've adopted flat rates and simpler tax structures have been doing ceteris paribus.

Here's the point:The way taxes are structure matter, even if the overall revenue stays neutral



The stall to growth and productivity isn't the attempts to pick winners and losers (otherwise known as attempts to promote or discourage certain behaviors), but the lever they use to do all of that with--onerous taxation itself. I have no idea how anyone who claims to be 'conservative' can defend that.


Well, read some conservative economists then. The Austrians explain it quite well, actually.


And if you had even one foot in the real world, you'd understand that inflation has so eroded wages over the decades that there are people working full time, yet in need of food stamps to make ends meet and keep the lights on. Now, how are these people being so well served by their federal government that they should need to move to the projects as well as take their food stamps just so they don't starve in return for working full time?


I have no use for this type of emotional OWS speech. How is that related to Romney's tax proposals? Romney tax reform would help those people immensely - believe me, they aren't the ones benefiting from the complexity of the fiscal code.
Come on across the pond and see what goes on here in the U.S. of A. and maybe you'll be able to address these little practical considerations.




Yeah? How much?

You're going to come to Ron Paul forums in your ignorance and start making bets about Ron Paul? Outstanding!

How much?



From Ron Paul site:



Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has introduced legislation to repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs.

As I said: no progressive taxation, all revenue dependent on excise and consumption taxes.




Oh, sure. Let you handle the money coming, let you handle the money going, and let you take your cut both directions. Having you as middleman twice in one transaction--that'll solve all our problems! :rolleyes:

Oh no, I'd just terminate those programs. I don't think the government should be waging the War on Poverty. I'm saying - and, once again, this is pretty much a consensual position amongst conservative economists - that if politicians are going to redistribute others' people wealth, they shouldn't use the tax code for it.

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 01:12 PM
So, you consider a tariff a consumption tax? Well, I suppose it isn't the most far-fetched category, but it isn't the descriptor I would use.

You're talking apples and oranges. Romney isn't talking about a flat tax. He made that clear enough even in the most vague of his promises about people making under x amount per year. And you echoed him. You want everyone to pay tax, but Romney clearly isn't going to do that for you. At the end of the day, we're not going to get very far shouting at each other over what Romney's going to do, because he hasn't told us what the hell he's going to do. He has said that much. But one thing is certain. Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, there will be winners and losers--at least in the short term--any time the tax code is altered.

And I don't know how you figure anyone is going to redistribute wealth without taxation--unless it's by burglary...

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 01:25 PM
So, you consider a tariff a consumption tax? Well, I suppose it isn't the most far-fetched category, but it isn't the descriptor I would use.

You're talking apples and oranges. Romney isn't talking about a flat tax. He made that clear enough even in the most vague of his promises about people making under x amount per year. And you echoed him. You want everyone to pay tax, but Romney clearly isn't going to do that for you. At the end of the day, we're not going to get very far shouting at each other over what Romney's going to do, because he hasn't told us what the hell he's going to do. But he has said that much. But one thing is certain. Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, there will be winners and losers--at least in the short term--any time the tax code is altered.

And I don't know how you figure anyone is going to redistribute wealth without taxation--unless it's by burglary...

Consumption taxes is a generic description. The point is that Ron Paul is even more radical than Rand or Romney. He'd get rid of any kind of progressiveness in the taxing system (at least a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels). So, where do you stand, acptulsa?

Of course, Romney won't implement a flat tax. I've said above: a flat tax is, for the time being, more interesting as the subject of intellectual discussion than as a policy proposal.

Romney's proposal simplifies the tax code, makes it less distortionary, lowers tax rates and eliminates capital gains and dividends taxes (which shouldn't exist because they hurt the economy so much) for the lower and middle classes.

In my view, this is a very positive step and one that can be realistically achieved in the next 4 years. It reduces government intervention in the economy and only screws rent-seekers.

Lower taxes and fewer deductions is a step on the right direction. The only losers are those who are winning illegitimately.

They're going to use taxation; they shouldn't use the tax code to do it. IOW, keep the tax code as simple as possible. Leave progressiveness to the overall system (and again, I'm still opposed to this; I defend it as a way of minimizing the harm caused by wealth redistribution).

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 01:36 PM
Consumption taxes is a generic description. The point is that Ron Paul is even more radical than Rand or Romney. He'd get rid of any kind of progressiveness in the taxing system (at least a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels). So, where do you stand, acptulsa?

Not there. I don't believe all tariffs are consumption taxes, and I don't believe that a flat tax is 'progressive' just because a person making millions pays a higher dollar amount than a person making tens of thousands (the same rate is the same rate, thus the 'flat' moniker).

Where do I stand? In a place you consider 'radical', and thank you for the compliment.


Romney's proposal simplifies the tax code, makes it less distortionary, lowers tax rates and eliminates capital gains and dividends taxes (which shouldn't exist because they hurt the economy so much) for the lower and middle classes.

You don't know exactly what his proposal entails, any more than anyone else outside his inner circle.

Oh, and thanks for the thought earlier, when you tried to kick Oklahoma out of the Union. But I don't think escape will be that easy for us.

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 01:56 PM
Not there. I don't believe all tariffs are consumption taxes, and I don't believe that a flat tax is 'progressive' just because a person making millions pays a higher dollar amount than a person making tens of thousands (the same rate is the same rate, thus the 'flat' moniker).

Even if a flat tax isn't progressive, do you understand Ron Paul defends the same rationale you described as "unfortunate" some minutes ago?

Are you a small-government conservative on fiscal matter? Or as many Ron Paul hardcore supporters, are you more of a single-issue voter, an anti-Republican voter or an authoritarian liberal?





You don't know exactly what his proposal entails, any more than anyone else outside his inner circle.

Oh, and thanks for the thought earlier, when you tried to kick Oklahoma out of the Union. But I don't think escape will be that easy for us

I have no idea what you're talking re: OK.

Apparently we knew enough about Romney's proposals when you were trying to criticize them without any push-back. It was enough info for the "omg, republicans are evil, they don't want progressive taxes" poster to make his conclusions and for you to agree with him.

I know what is in Romney's site. It's a lot more specific that what Obama is offering.

Anyway, it's duly noted that your stance is not that Romney's tax cuts are bad. It's that you don't know enough about them. Someone could get the wrong impression from reading the OP

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 02:10 PM
Ron Paul's proposals are, in net effect, far more progressive than what we have now, and far, far more progressive than your 'progressive' flat tax. Or do you think everyone pays the same dollar amount in excise taxes and tariffs? Romney isn't specific at all; a sitting president offers nothing but specifics. You know exactly what you get with him because you're getting it. I asked questions in the OP. I didn't just go around making blanket statements like 'all tariffs are consumption taxes' and 'any tax is progressive if someone pays a different total dollar amount than someone else'. You think he's promising tax cuts that raise overall revenue. Seems a hard thing to promise; it won't increase overall revenue immediately, and after seeing Reagan's attempts along those lines (just for example) there's no guarantee that it will happen at all. But hey. Maybe that's what he means. You could have just said that, instead of accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, then proving you had less idea what was coming out of your own mouth than even I did...

DeMintConservative
10-22-2012, 02:21 PM
Ron Paul's proposals are, in net effect, far more progressive than what we have now, and far, far more progressive than your 'progressive' flat tax. Or do you think everyone pays the same dollar amount in excise taxes and tariffs? Romney isn't specific at all; a sitting president offers nothing but specifics. You know exactly what you get with him because you're getting it. I asked questions in the OP. I didn't just go around making blanket statements like 'all tariffs are consumption taxes' and 'any tax is progressive if someone pays a different total dollar amount than someone else'. You think he's promising tax cuts that raise overall revenue. Seems a hard thing to promise; it won't increase overall revenue immediately, and after seeing Reagan's attempts along those lines (just for example) there's no guarantee that it will happen at all. But hey. Maybe that's what he means. You could have just said that, instead of accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, then proving you had less idea what was coming out of your own mouth than even I did...

Excise taxes and tariffs are texbook example of regressive taxes.

I had no idea Obama was promising he'd keep things exactly as they are in re: to taxes. Oh, he doesn't. Which kind of makes your point moot. What are Obama's plans in regards to taxes? Or, for that matter, what are his plans at all for the next 4 years? His entire campaign is about jealousy, resentment, Big Bird, binders and lady parts.

Again, your misunderstanding Romney's proposal. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read it. It seems you're just parroting the Obama campaign/liberal punditry nonsense about specifics. He's saying he's going to keep revenue neutral by simplifying the tax code, getting rid of deductions and loopholes and lowering tax rates. Unlike the other poster who I corrected about Romney's proposal on the capital gains and dividends tax, you keep talking in extremely vague and generic terms.

Let me help you:


Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)


Do you agree with the Austrian economists position on taxes and welfare, acptulsa?

acptulsa
10-22-2012, 03:15 PM
Excise taxes and tariffs are texbook example of regressive taxes.

And your response is a textbook example of obfuscation. A tax on Rolls-Royces is a textbook example of a regressive tax, as it's identical for everyone it affects. But that doesn't mean the net effect is regressive, does it?


I had no idea Obama was promising he'd keep things exactly as they are in re: to taxes. Oh, he doesn't. Which kind of makes your point moot. What are Obama's plans in regards to taxes? Or, for that matter, what are his plans at all for the next 4 years? His entire campaign is about jealousy, resentment, Big Bird, binders and lady parts.

So, you'd rather hear about what he promises than what he does? And do you also consider what he promises more important than what he does?

No wonder you're a DeMint fan... :rolleyes:


Again, your misunderstanding Romney's proposal. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read it. It seems you're just parroting the Obama campaign/liberal punditry nonsense about specifics. He's saying he's going to keep revenue neutral by simplifying the tax code, getting rid of deductions and loopholes and lowering tax rates. Unlike the other poster who I corrected about Romney's proposal on the capital gains and dividends tax, you keep talking in extremely vague and generic terms.

Let me help you:

Since he did not say that he would maintain revenues simply by means of increased earnings, and it really isn't safe to assume that this plan will increase earnings enough to maintain revenue, I think it is safe to assume there's more to it than he's telling us.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 01:04 PM
Okay, it seems we can all disregard the OP.

Apparently acptulsa is not willing to defend the Orwellian talking point that tax cuts are actually tax hikes (as long as it's a Republican proposing them, of course) any more. He now claims that Romney isn't telling us enough to make a judgement. I disagree, but as a line of argument that's pretty much a dead end. What I think we can all agree on is that every libertarian/fiscal conservative can agree with the Romney/Ryan proposals on principle. Perhaps they don't go as far as needed, but they're undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

acptulsa, I'm not sure if you're familiar with economic concepts, but no, a tax on a Rolls-Royce is not a textbook example of a regressive tax. Sales or value added taxes tend to be regressive when they're applied to goods with neutral or negative income elasticity of demand. Additionally, taxes per unit, like excise taxes, tend to be more regressive than taxes ad valorem (which is what makes Ron Paul's proposal so regressive).

What I take from this thread is that you and others must be horrified with Austrian economists and Ron Paul's positions on these issues.

acptulsa
10-23-2012, 01:19 PM
Apparently acptulsa is not willing to defend the Orwellian talking point that tax cuts are actually tax hikes (as long as it's a Republican proposing them, of course) any more.

I was never wiling to defend your Orwellian talking point. Never tried. You said that, I didn't, I don't propose defending it no matter how much you beg me to.

If Romney is saying that he's going to cut taxes, yet revenues will not drop, and he's not saying that there will be a delay while his incentives increase someone's earnings, then he's picking winners and losers. You know--the Democrat game. Just as he did in Taxachussetts. Period. There is no other alternative.

And that's the position I have been defending, and am still defending, as you are unfortunately tireless in your trolling. I would say that waiting until I'm off line, then popping up and declaring yourself the victor is beneath you. But this is obviously not the case...

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 02:20 PM
I was never wiling to defend your Orwellian talking point. Never tried. You said that, I didn't, I don't propose defending it no matter how much you beg me to.


The Orwellian talking point is the title of this thread. The one you don't even try to defend any more - by now pledging ignorance about the subject.


If Romney is saying that he's going to cut taxes, yet revenues will not drop, and he's not saying that there will be a delay while his incentives increase someone's earnings, then he's picking winners and losers. You know--the Democrat game. .

No, it's not.

Do you think Ron Paul's proposals of tax reform - get rid of income tax, replace with excise and tariffs - is picking winners and losers too? The Democrat game? Because in the sense you're using the expression, that will create winners and losers too: there are millions of people who pay no income tax that would need to start paying those excites taxes. What Romney proposes, eliminating tax expenditures, is not picking winners and losers: it's moving towards allowing the free-market to pick them.

You seem extremely confused about the economics of liberty.

acptulsa
10-23-2012, 02:27 PM
Do you think Ron Paul's proposals of tax reform - get rid of income tax, replace with excise and tariffs - is picking winners and losers too? The Democrat game? Because in the sense you're using the expression, that will create winners and losers too: there are millions of people who pay no income tax that would need to start paying those excites taxes. What Romney proposes, eliminating tax expenditures, is not picking winners and losers: it's moving towards allowing the free-market to pick them.

You seem extremely confused about the economics of liberty.

Excites taxes? Sure thing. God knows taxes always get me excited...

Excise taxes and tariffs picking winners and losers more than, say, tax cuts for the married with children? If you say so.

You think Romney plans to cut more expenditures than Paul has worked for two dozen years in Washington to cut and yet you consider me confused about the economics of liberty? You are entitled to your opinion. And the rest of us are entitled to laugh, too.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 02:30 PM
I dont' get it.

Are you claiming we should just keep the status quo because any tax reform will, in your mind, always create winners and losers (relatively to the status quo)?

Eliminating tax expenditures is not picking winners and losers. It's the exact opposite. Again: absolutely Orwellian.

acptulsa
10-23-2012, 02:37 PM
Eliminating tax expenditures is not picking winners and losers. It's the exact opposite.

And yet you maintain that Romney, whose policies are indistinguishable from Obama's, is not about picking winners and losers and Ron Paul, who never voted for a spending increase in his entire career, is.


I dont' get it.

Clearly. I would say that if English weren't your second language you would. But I doubt it. Your disconnect seems to be something other than a language gap.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 03:14 PM
And yet you maintain that Romney, whose policies are indistinguishable from Obama's, is not about picking winners and losers and Ron Paul, who never voted for a spending increase in his entire career, is.

I claim that you are wrong when you claim that Romney's tax policy - eliminating tax expenditures - is picking winners and losers.

I don't claim Ron Paul is about picking winners and losers - you're just making up stuff at this point. I'm saying that if you believe Romney's policy is about picking winners and losers, then you ought to believe Ron Paul's policy proposals are the same.

In any case, considering your comments on the progressiveness of the taxation system, we all know what you actually think of Ron Paul's favored economic policies.

PS - I have no use whatsoever for ad hominem remarks and I don't really engage in acrimonious debate. I've noticed you're a passionate adept but, once again, I'll just leave them unanswered.

DeMintConservative
10-23-2012, 03:15 PM
I'd appreciate if, for once, you'd try to answer my questions - just as a matter of reciprocity. Maybe you just missed them?

For example:


Do you agree with the Austrian economists position on taxes and welfare, acptulsa?

Are you claiming we should just keep the status quo because any tax reform will, in your mind, always create winners and losers (relatively to the status quo)?

acptulsa
10-23-2012, 03:30 PM
I believe that if the federal government were limited to its Constitutional role and function, excise taxes and tariffs would be sufficient, the economy would be much, much better, and the world would be a safer place.

And I know we won't get anywhere near that place under Romney, if he is sworn in next January.

Feeding the Abscess
10-23-2012, 11:27 PM
Ron's proposal is eliminating the IRS and replacing it with nothing, and he's on record as saying he'd prefer to have zero tariffs.

So if we're going to talk about Ron's ideas, let's at least get them correct.

DeMintConservative
10-24-2012, 07:26 AM
Ron's proposal is eliminating the IRS and replacing it with nothing, and he's on record as saying he'd prefer to have zero tariffs.

So if we're going to talk about Ron's ideas, let's at least get them correct.

I didn't "talk about Ron's ideas". I quoted directly from his site. And yeah, I'm sure every politician would love to get rid of taxes in toto.

How exactly do you criticize Romney and Rand proposals on taxes while supporting Ron Paul? You probably hate Ron Paul's views on economics, welfare and redistribution of wealth.


I believe that if the federal government were limited to its Constitutional role and function, excise taxes and tariffs would be sufficient, the economy would be much, much better, and the world would be a safer place.

I agree - although it's such an unrealistic scenery that it has value in an intellectual, speculative discussion, not one about which public policies should be implemented in the short term. And that would still make the fiscal system deeply regressive. I still don't understand if you like that or not.


And I know we won't get anywhere near that place under Romney, if he is sworn in next January.

Maybe not. But the problem is that we'll get much further away if Obama is re-elected.

Still, I don't see how this is related with the starting point of this thread. If you, as an Obama booster, want to criticize Romney's policy proposals, that's fine - although I think it'd be more productive if you kept your focus on the bad ones.

What you did here was superficially bashing a good policy proposal, a serious step in the right direction, using Marxist rhetoric about fiscal progressiveness, an Orwellian logic under which you claim cuts are actually hikes and that implementing policies to stop the government picking winners and losers (by closing deductions, loopholes and other tax expenditures) equates to the government picking winners and losers (by having those things in the tax code) and then never explaining how exactly Romney's proposals are a net tax hike - and, when challenged, resorting to the "I can't tell, that thing isn't detailed enough" (as if anyone running for president ever presents more detailed policy proposals). Apparently it was detailed enough for you to make your initial claim.

I hope this thread was a teaching moment showing how there is an immense gap between Romney and Obama when it comes to substantial issues. If you want to keep this messed up tax code where everybody pays a higher tax rate to subsidize the Solyndras of this world, give Obama four more years. I'm sure he'll be capable of making it worse. If you want to have a chance at some sort of positive fiscal reform - admittedly not perfect and lacking, but arguably the best possible considering the composition of the Congress/Senate and the inclinations of the voting public - then kick him out.

acptulsa
10-24-2012, 07:19 PM
Fun trick--editing your post so I don't see that you've added something right away, and then accusing me of being an Obama supporter. Friend, I did to Obama trolls four years ago what I do to you today. Except you're easier. At least they...


I agree - although it's such an unrealistic scenery that it has...

...could generally speak English.

Friend, you're the one pushing Obama's policies, if you're supporting Romney, because you can't tell 'em apart without a program--and Romney ain't giving us a program, so you can't tell 'em apart.

Winners and losers? End the IRS and the losers are anyone with a lobbyist, while the winners are We, the People.

Feeding the Abscess
10-24-2012, 10:24 PM
I didn't "talk about Ron's ideas". I quoted directly from his site. And yeah, I'm sure every politician would love to get rid of taxes in toto.

How exactly do you criticize Romney and Rand proposals on taxes while supporting Ron Paul? You probably hate Ron Paul's views on economics, welfare and redistribution of wealth.

Yeah, no. The Republican party is carrying the mantra of "everyone should pay income taxes," from Rand Paul to Michelle Bachmann to John McCain.

You'll have to explain how I prefer wealth redistribution or welfare for the second to be applicable.

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 04:57 PM
Fun trick--editing your post so I don't see that you've added something right away, and then accusing me of being an Obama supporter.

Friend, you're the one pushing Obama's policies, if you're supporting Romney, because you can't tell 'em apart without a program--and Romney ain't giving us a program, so you can't tell 'em apart.

Winners and losers? End the IRS and the losers are anyone with a lobbyist, while the winners are We, the People.

I edited my post 12 hours before you wrote yours and to fix a typo. Twelve hours. Did you notice that? Why would that bother you?

You're a de fact Obama supporter - you're just comfortable pretending you aren't, but your posts speak for themselves. Your dislike for economic freedom - and misunderstanding of basic economic concepts - was pretty visible in this thread. Both in what you said and what you refused to say.

In any case, it's duly noted you were never able to explain why and how Romney tax cuts were tax hikes. They aren't and the reform he's proposing is a step in the right direction. It's never a good idea to copy past almost verbatim OFA's propaganda e-mails.




Yeah, no. The Republican party is carrying the mantra of "everyone should pay income taxes," from Rand Paul to Michelle Bachmann to John McCain.

You'll have to explain how I prefer wealth redistribution or welfare for the second to be applicable.

Well, that's because a politician who claims that his tax reform program is to pass a Constitutional Amendment to end income tax isn't taken seriously because that's simply not realistic. And if you want to be a serious candidate in a national or even statewide race for federal office, you need to come up with a relatively realistic platform. If Rand adopts Ron Paul platform on taxes, he'll quickly adopt his electoral ceiling as well.

As long as there is an income tax everyone should pay it. And if you defend a progressive income tax, you're by definition in favor or wealth redistribution.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 05:09 PM
I edited my post 12 hours before you wrote yours and to fix a typo. Twelve hours. Did you notice that? Why would that bother you?

You're a de fact Obama supporter - you're just comfortable pretending you aren't, but your posts speak for themselves. Your dislike for economic freedom - and misunderstanding of basic economic concepts - was pretty visible in this thread. Both in what you said and what you refused to say.

In any case, it's duly noted you were never able to explain why and how Romney tax cuts were tax hikes. They aren't and the reform he's proposing is a step in the right direction. It's never a good idea to copy past almost verbatim OFA's propaganda e-mails.

I've never seen OFA's emails. I don't even know what an OFA is. And de fact is that if I were a de facto friend of Obama, he wouldn't need enemies. At the end of the day, he didn't say this voodoo was feasible because his incentives--his particular picking of winners and losers--would stimulate the economy enough that it would eventually (these things could not possibly happen overnight) stimulate the economy enough to improve the tax base. He said he'd cut taxes and reduce the defecit. We've heard that before, and never seen it. Except where cutting taxes for some while raising them for others.

And your contention that a flat tax doesn't pick winners and losers, while eliminating income tax altogether does pick winners and losers, is beyond laughable--especially coming from someone accusing others of economic ignorance.


Well, that's because a politician who claims that his tax reform program is to pass a Constitutional Amendment to end income tax isn't taken seriously because that's simply not realistic. And if you want to be a serious candidate in a national or even statewide race for federal office, you need to come up with a relatively realistic platform. If Rand adopts Ron Paul platform on taxes, he'll quickly adopt his electoral ceiling as well.

As long as there is an income tax everyone should pay it. And if you defend a progressive income tax, you're by definition in favor or wealth redistribution.

A Constitutional amendment, by definition, can be passed. The notion that it would cause its proponent to 'adopt' an electoral ceiling is laughable, given the lack of popularity of the income tax. And the income tax can be eliminated without repealing the Amendment that made it possible.

Oh, and how you bought yourself those twelve hours was kind of my whole point, Einstein.

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 05:31 PM
And your contention that a flat tax doesn't pick winners and losers, while eliminating income tax altogether does pick winners and losers, is beyond laughable--especially coming from someone accusing others of economic ignorance.

Again, you keep falsely accusing me of claiming that. I never did. This is, what, the 3rd time I have to correct that?

If you can't argue without resorting to strawmen, there's a good chance you shouldn't be arguing at all.

Eliminating income tax altogether is not creating winners and losers.

Adopting a flat tax (or getting rid of deductions and loopholes) is not creating winners and losers - and you are an economic ignorant because you claimed it is.




A Constitutional amendment, by definition, can be passed. The notion that it would cause its proponent to 'adopt' an electoral ceiling is laughable, given the lack of popularity of the income tax. And the income tax can be eliminated without repealing the Amendment that made it possible.

No politician who claims his tax reform is to eliminate the income tax and subsitute it with excise taxes will be taken seriously as a contender for a major party nomination. Keep screaming: Rand Paul will never do that. Well, that's why he doesn't. Deal with it.

erowe1
10-26-2012, 05:44 PM
And yeah, I'm sure every politician would love to get rid of taxes in toto.
That's like saying Cookie Monster would love to get rid of cookies. The whole reason they're politicians is so they can spend other people's money.



Maybe not. But the problem is that we'll get much further away if Obama is re-elected.
I don't think there's any good reason to believe this.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 05:48 PM
I'd appreciate if, for once, you'd try to answer my questions - just as a matter of reciprocity. Maybe you just missed them?

For example:


Do you agree with the Austrian economists position on taxes and welfare, acptulsa?

Which one? I wasn't aware they marched in lockstep.


Are you claiming we should just keep the status quo because any tax reform will, in your mind, always create winners and losers (relatively to the status quo)?

Considering I've already come out in favor of eliminating the income tax (something you seem to oppose, or at least something no politician can espouse without you ceasing to take them seriously), I believe we may assume this is a rhetorical question?


Again, you keep falsely accusing me of claiming that. I never did. This is, what, the 3rd time I have to correct that?

If you can't argue without resorting to strawmen, there's a good chance you shouldn't be arguing at all.

Eliminating income tax altogether is not creating winners and losers.

Adopting a flat tax (or getting rid of deductions and loopholes) is not creating winners and losers - and you are an economic ignorant because you claimed it is.

I clearly said that any change in the tax code short of eliminating taxes altogether changes circumstances, and therefore, in the short term, creates winners and losers. This is simple logic.

Eliminating taxes merely creates winners. Except among those who got kickbacks from those taxes.

As for my 'straw man'...


The point is that Ron Paul is even more radical than Rand or Romney. He'd get rid of any kind of progressiveness in the taxing system (at least a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels). So, where do you stand, acptulsa?

Where do I stand? I stand here: Ron is more radical than Rand because Ron would get rid of any kind of progressiveness in the taxing system, and Rand wouldn't because a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels, means you're saying a flat tax is progressive. Here I stand, and here I stay.


No politician who claims his tax reform is to eliminate the income tax and subsitute it with excise taxes will be taken seriously as a contender for a major party nomination. Keep screaming: Rand Paul will never do that. Well, that's why he doesn't. Deal with it.

Not a chip off the old block, eh? Well, I hope he gets a chance to prove you wrong.

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 06:03 PM
I clearly said that any change in the tax code short of eliminating taxes altogether changes circumstances, and therefore, in the short term, creates winners and losers. This is simple logic.

Eliminating taxes merely creates winners. Except among those who got kickbacks from those taxes..

Hahahaha. Of course, it merely creates winners. Except for the losers.

I think we're finished here. You're too emotional to concede the point explicitly but you've done it anyway.

If you were a bit more familiar with these issues, you'd know none of those measures creates winners and losers in the sense tax expenditures create them.

I guess it's hard to expect better from someone who said a flat tax would be unfortunate because it'd eliminate progressiveness



Where do I stand? I stand here: Ron is more radical than Rand because Ron would get rid of any kind of progressiveness in the taxing system, and Rand wouldn't because a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels, means you're saying a flat tax is progressive.

No, I'm not saying that. You are. Do you know why? Because you don't even know some very basic economic concepts.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 06:16 PM
Hahahaha. Of course, it merely creates winners. Except for the losers.

I hardly consider cutting off the beneficiaries of bought influence (otherwise known as bribers and bribery) a downside.


I think we're finished here. You're too emotional to concede the point explicitly but you've done it anyway.

Unless and until Romney, at the very least, says that he was figuring projected (otherwise known as theoretical) revenue increases due to an improved economy, there's nothing for me to concede. But, of course, you're too stubborn to concede even that. So, I sincerely hope we are done here.


If you were a bit more familiar with these issues, you'd know none of those measures creates winners and losers in the sense tax expenditures create them.

If you were a bit more familiar with the English language, you'd know I already said as much. Talk about straw men.


I guess it's hard to expect better from someone who said a flat tax would be unfortunate because it'd eliminate progressiveness

Well, we're sure not to get better from someone who said the poor should pay more, and trust you to kick it back to them--or, in other words, tax the poor so you can increase their welfare...


No, I'm not saying that. You are. Do you know why? Because you don't even know some very basic economic concepts.

But I do understand the English language. So, the best benefit of the doubt we could possibly grant you is that you have no clue what the hell you're saying. Ron would get rid of any kind of progressiveness; Rand is less radical because a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels. Plain as day: Flat taxes do not get rid of every kind of progressiveness in the tax code. This is what you said. And everyone else here can see it.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 06:22 PM
Oh, and for the record--I cannot think of a single circumstance in which I'd vote for that lying bastard Obama. You, on the other hand, are on record as disagreeing with me on this...


I'd vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket before even thinking about voting for a ticket featuring Stein.

This ^^ about a ticket with Gary Johnson as the presidential candidate...

erowe1
10-26-2012, 06:27 PM
Oh, and for the record--I cannot think of a single circumstance in which I'd vote for that lying bastard Obama. You, on the other hand, are on record as disagreeing with me on this...

I'm not going to vote for Obama. But the thought has crossed my mind. I really don't want Romney to win. If he does federal spending will balloon beyond belief.

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 06:35 PM
Well, that must be it. Apparently our trollish friend can't tell us apart.

I guess everyone looks alike on the interwebz...

anamandy
10-26-2012, 07:53 PM
Sen. Portman just said on Meet the Press that Romney's voodoo economics do add up because, 'It doesn't just involve tax cuts but also tax reform.'

In other words, the basic tax rate might go down (or might not, remember if he told us the specifics he'd have to shoot us). But he's going to do a deduction reduction that will result in a net, effective, end of the day tax hike for most people. Not that it isn't tempting to have the fedgov stop using deductions to affect our behavior. That always has been an irritating practice. But a net effect tax hike is hardly the way to 'get this economy going again.'

Or am I reading it wrong? Not just tax cuts but tax reform making a thing that doesn't seem to come out even come out even. What else could it possibly mean besides eliminating deductions to enhance revenues--otherwise known as lower rates but fewer deductions adding up to higher taxes?

No wonder he won't give us specifics. Who in his or her right mind would vote for that?

Are you an Obama troll? Because the fact that you are espousing this tells me that you are not a follower of Ron Paul. If you were you would know that the middle class and the poor are being overly taxed right now. It's called inflation! And we have inflation because the dollar is devalued due to the Feds printing money as a way to deal with the debt Obama is creating. I prefer Ron Paul and my next choice is Johnson. But Paul didn't get the nomination and voting for Johnson is a vote for Obama. And this country will not survive another 4 more years under Obama. At least if Romney gets elected he'll get the debt under control and keep the country afloat until Rand is ready to run. That's the race I'm waiting for for!!!

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 08:12 PM
Are you an Obama troll?

Have you lost your flipping mind?


Because the fact that you are espousing this tells me that you are not a follower of Ron Paul. If you were you would know that the middle class and the poor are being overly taxed right now. It's called inflation! And we have inflation because the dollar is devalued due to the Feds printing money as a way to deal with the debt Obama is creating.

Ron Paul would be the first to tell you that the debt is created by Congress, while the president merely passes it; that Obama's debt is bad, but this debt has been piling up since FDR; and that the taxation I was talking about in the OP was not the inflation tax (which Romney has made abundantly clear he will do nothing but nothing to curtail) but Romney's mysterious yet obviously untenable tax plan.


I prefer Ron Paul and my next choice is Johnson. But Paul didn't get the nomination and voting for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

No, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. See how that works?


And this country will not survive another 4 more years under Obama.

This nation is, by the grace of God, pretty resiliant. The government may not survive, but the nation is bigger than Washington (to paraphrase Will Rogers) and if you don't believe it I'll show you a map.


At least if Romney gets elected he'll get the debt under control and keep the country afloat until Rand is ready to run.

Do I have your personal guarantee? Shall we put money on it? Because last I heard, it would take most of the fedgov's revenues just to service the debt. Besides, Romney has promised us a splendid little war in Iran, and that we cannot pay for as we go unless he starves us all.


That's the race I'm waiting for for!!!

You aren't sitting around waiting for anything. You are here using your first post to insult and libel a person you don't know from Adam. Presumably because you're brim full of Limbaugh brainlessness, and can find no productive outlet for it.

Welcome to the forum... :rolleyes: ...and thanks for bumping my thread!

erowe1
10-26-2012, 08:35 PM
At least if Romney gets elected he'll get the debt under control and keep the country afloat

Where in the world did you get this idea?

And since when does someone use their very first post to call someone else a troll?

acptulsa
10-26-2012, 08:37 PM
Where in the world did you get this idea?

Rupert Murdoch. You know, the unimpeachable source of all that yellowcake uranium.


And since when does someone use their very first post to call someone else a troll?

Nine out of ten brand new trolls recommend it as the perfect camoflage.

Feeding the Abscess
10-26-2012, 09:25 PM
Well, that's because a politician who claims that his tax reform program is to pass a Constitutional Amendment to end income tax isn't taken seriously because that's simply not realistic. And if you want to be a serious candidate in a national or even statewide race for federal office, you need to come up with a relatively realistic platform. If Rand adopts Ron Paul platform on taxes, he'll quickly adopt his electoral ceiling as well.

As long as there is an income tax everyone should pay it. And if you defend a progressive income tax, you're by definition in favor or wealth redistribution.

No, if there is an income tax, the least possible amount of people pay it (better, of course, that it doesn't exist at all), and I don't defend any income tax. Or, for that matter, any tax at all.

Take it a step further: if you defend government, you are, by definition, in favor of wealth redistribution.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:44 PM
No, if there is an income tax, the least possible amount of people pay it (better, of course, that it doesn't exist at all), and I don't defend any income tax. Or, for that matter, any tax at all.

Take it a step further: if you defend government, you are, by definition, in favor of wealth redistribution.

Perhaps, but instituting an ancap utopia, or Mises' voluntary taxes fiction, is not really what's in question in presidential elections.

I'll put this in simple terms: is it better that everybody pays 5% income taxes or that politicians can pick some to pay 0%, some to pay 3% and then force others to pay 15% to make up for it?






This ^^ about a ticket with Gary Johnson as the presidential candidate...

I am amused by the fact you think I don't stand for that.

Heck, I even wrote "any ticket with Stein on it", wasn't it? I mean, why do you stress Johnson is on the ticket, a guy I rate about joke candidate level? It could Romney, DeMint or anyone you want on that ticket. I would easily vote for a Dem ticket over a ticket featuring a crazy totalitarian.


I hardly consider cutting off the beneficiaries of bought influence (otherwise known as bribers and bribery) a downside.


Unless and until Romney, at the very least, says that he was figuring projected (otherwise known as theoretical) revenue increases due to an improved economy, there's nothing for me to concede. But, of course, you're too stubborn to concede even that. So, I sincerely hope we are done here.

Well, we're sure not to get better from someone who said the poor should pay more, and trust you to kick it back to them--or, in other words, tax the poor so you can increase their welfare...


But I do understand the English language. So, the best benefit of the doubt we could possibly grant you is that you have no clue what the hell you're saying. Ron would get rid of any kind of progressiveness; Rand is less radical because a flat tax on income is still correlated to income levels. Plain as day: Flat taxes do not get rid of every kind of progressiveness in the tax code. This is what you said. And everyone else here can see it.


Look, you have no clue whatsoever about very basic economic concepts. You have no idea whatsoever about what is or is not a regressive tax. You really shouldn't be discussing this stuff without reading some Econ101 manual.

Again, parroting Axelrod e-mails doesn't make you an economic expert. Romney's plan is absolutely sound: the economy isn't a zero sum game. It's a huge step in the right direction and one that probably needs to be given in the next 4 years if it's to happen.

Plus, we've already concluded that you can't substantiate your Orwellian claim that the tax cuts would result in a tax hike. You just parroted what your campaign is telling. It's a lie.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 04:49 PM
I don't have a campaign, I don't even know who Axelrod is, we don't know enough about Romney's plan to know if it's sound or not because if he told us what it was he'd have to kill us (so we don't know when he's lying and when he isn't), and I have a better idea what a regressive tax is than you do, so I'll stick to Econ 201 and leave the 101 to you.

And the only Orwellian claim in this thread is that a vote for Romney is a vote for liberty and economic sanity.

erowe1
10-30-2012, 04:52 PM
I'll put this in simple terms: is it better that everybody pays 5% income taxes or that politicians can pick some to pay 0%, some to pay 3% and then force others to pay 15% to make up for it?


The one of those that is better is whichever one gives the federal government less revenue.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:56 PM
The one of those that is better is whichever one gives the federal government less revenue.

For the same level of revenue, of course.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:57 PM
we don't know enough about Romney's plan to know if it's sound or not .

Really?

I thought it was you who started this thread claiming it wasn't! Copying an Obama campaign e-mail! Now you don't know enough to figure it out? But you claimed it wasn't sound in the OP.

Apparently someone is using your account. Perhaps you need to change the password.

Glad we sorted that out.

rpfocus
10-30-2012, 05:07 PM
You aren't sitting around waiting for anything. You are here using your first post to insult and libel a person you don't know from Adam. Presumably because you're brim full of Limbaugh brainlessness, and can find no productive outlet for it.

Before you let him rile you up, if you haven't already seen where anamandy is coming from, check this out: http://www.theblaze.com/users/anamandy/

Take what that stormfront agent says with a grain of salt.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 09:54 PM
Copying an Obama campaign e-mail!

Now, I posted the OP on a Sunday morning. Since you get those Obama campaign emails and I don't, I can't see if it predates my OP. But my OP came out shortly after the statement was originally made. So, if you're going to keep making this charge, instead of assuming the Obama campaign copied me, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that email came out before I posted the OP.

Either that, or stop lying. If you have the slightest bit of honor, and/or the slightest aversion to continuing to make a damned fool of yourself.

acptulsa
10-31-2012, 07:10 AM
Come on, you ignorant, un-American, blathering troll. You said I stole the talking point from the Obama campaign and I say they stole it from me. You're the one that subscribes to their emails and pores over them like they're gospels. Prove that email predates my OP. I dare you.

erowe1
10-31-2012, 09:34 AM
For the same level of revenue, of course.

If it's revenue neutral then it's not worth wasting any breath arguing about. Less revenue is always better than more. And if you have to make the tax code more pregressive or less progressive or have more loop holes or fewer loop holes or distribute the tax burden in whatever whacky way, the one criterion that really matters is always to make that total burden smaller, not bigger.