Paul Ryan's math

Paul Ryan's math (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

graceadieu -> Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 3:39:30 PM)
Paul Ryan said in an interview on Fox News today that the Romney-Ryan plan is to cut everyone in America's taxes by 20% ("starting at the top"), and he claims that this will be revenue-neutral without getting rid of deductions. When pressed about how that works, he refused to explain, saying "It would take me too long to go through all the math". All what math? Can anybody explain to me how American public can pay 20% less tax and still have the IRS receive exactly the same amount of tax revenue? Where is that extra 20% of revenue going to come from? I'm really curious here, conservative CollerMe members! Watch the interview clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 3:51:15 PM)
The is no cutting you can do that will let you cut everyone's taxes by 20^ and reduce the federal deficit/debt.. Paul Ryan is very simply stated ... Blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Why? To get elected. If you're above the magical 47% they won't give a dime back to, you payback is a great big GOOSE EGG.

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 3:54:48 PM)
Remember "Fuzzy Math" ...Republican for "No clue wtf this guy is talking about".

Politesub53 -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 4:18:34 PM)
Ive posed the following question to Republicans on the board.... How is Romney going to reduce taxes, increase spending on the military year on year and not raise taxes, either directly or indirectly. Have a had a reply ? ........... As Dianna Ross once sang "I`m still waiting" I cant be arsed to ask any of them how Romney plan to hold China to account financially will go, since the chinese have invested $2 trillion in the US. Such a shitty move by a nation who wish to see America fail.......... [8\|]

Lucylastic -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 4:33:29 PM)
How many here screamed about Pelosi's comment about the health care bill ??? Yet the silence about Vulture and Vouchers vagueness and outright refusal to discuss the "how its gonna actually happen" is not an issue for any of them

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 6:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic How many here screamed about Pelosi's comment about the health care bill ??? Yet the silence about Vulture and Vouchers vagueness and outright refusal to discuss the "how its gonna actually happen" is not an issue for any of them I don't know, since I wasn't here at the time. But I bet any amount of money I could write up a list and it would be accurate within a few names[:D] Course having read the TOS top to bottom, I know I can't name names. [8D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 6:22:29 PM)
[;)]

cloudboy -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 7:18:41 PM)
If you cut the tax rate from 70% to 56% you do get a private sector economic boost, but the lost tax revenue won't be 100% made for by the expanded economy. This principal changes when the existing tax rate is already near a historic low like today. Cutting taxes from 15% to 13% will do little to expand the economy and won't come close to making up for the lost tax revenues though economic expansion. Its also true that the economy can expand with higher tax rates, as happened under Clinton.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 7:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy If you cut the tax rate from 70% to 56% you do get a private sector economic boost, but the lost tax revenue won't be 100% made for by the expanded economy. This principal changes when the existing tax rate is already near a historic low like today. Cutting taxes from 15% to 13% will do little to expand the economy and won't come close to making up for the lost tax revenues though economic expansion. Its also true that the economy can expand with higher tax rates, as happened under Clinton. Without the massive changes spurred by the internet, there may not have been anywhere near that expansion under Clinton. That's more a case of damn good luck than results of policy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (9/30/2012 7:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu Paul Ryan said in an interview on Fox News today that the Romney-Ryan plan is to cut everyone in America's taxes by 20% ("starting at the top"), and he claims that this will be revenue-neutral without getting rid of deductions. When pressed about how that works, he refused to explain, saying "It would take me too long to go through all the math". All what math? Can anybody explain to me how American public can pay 20% less tax and still have the IRS receive exactly the same amount of tax revenue? Where is that extra 20% of revenue going to come from? I'm really curious here, conservative CollerMe members! Watch the interview clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM66-SxHDu0 While the plan does cut tax rates, it is "revenue neutral." The reduction in tax revenues from lower rates will be made up for by some combination of increased economics and - and this is the part that most critics ignore - the plan also calls for getting rid of most, if not all, loopholes, carve outs, or whatever you want to call them. Simply trumpeting the tax rate cuts, which are definitely there, without mentioning the reduction of tax loopholes, what results is misleading rhetoric. And, while there's no doubt that politicians, their campaigns, and their local/state/national parties are well-versed in this practice, our buying into it without acknowledging the whole truth, will not help at all.

cloudboy -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 7:25:51 AM)
quote: While the plan does cut tax rates, it is "revenue neutral." The reduction in tax revenues from lower rates will be made up for by some combination of increased economics and - and this is the part that most critics ignore - the plan also calls for getting rid of most, if not all, loopholes, carve outs, or whatever you want to call them. You are not making any sense. Can you cite one example from history where cutting taxes helped reduce the national deficit? Its never happened. The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. Raising taxes on the wealthy won't kill the economy either, that's a myth. Clinton controlled spending (unlike Republican Presidents) and increased taxes. He's the only President in our lifetime to run a balanced budget. Every Republican at the time said his policy would ruin the US economy. The most important achievement in political economy in the Clinton yeas was reducing the federal deficit. Just before his inauguration Clinton held an economic summit in Little Rock, at which academic, business executives, and financiers one after another moaned about how huge federal borrowing to cover debt was making capital too expensive to allow industry to grow. One year later Clinton had rammed through a tax-and -budget bill that turned a chronic deficit into a surplus. The anti-deficit drive was controversial within the Democratic Party, because Clinton seemed to be truckling to financial markets rather than spending more for education and health. It was bitterly resisted by the Republicans; every single Republican member of Congress voted against the new taxes in the plan. It was an enormous gamble on Clinton's part: he had Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The historical judgment has to be that it paid off, for Clinton, and, of vastly more importance, for the country. --James Fallows

cloudboy -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 7:27:47 AM)
quote: The historical judgment has to be that it paid off, for Clinton, and, of vastly more importance, for the country. We can't say that about the Bush Tax Cuts, Regulatory Policy, or wars. (Just to pile on.)

DarkSteven -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 7:40:01 AM)
I don't believe it, but here's the argument. The whole concept of trickle-down is that, if money does not go to the government, it will go to the private sector and spur economic activity. Trickle-down holds that at the proper location on the Laffer curve, each dollar of tax cuts simulates enough economic activity that the marginal increase in taxes directly due to that activity is worth MORE than a dollar.

Yachtie -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 7:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. What is the deficit but spending beyond ones means, drawing from tomorrow so as to have today? Before one can contemplate any reduction one must stop adding to it in the first place.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 7:51:21 AM)
This is the math of conservative politics. Been going on for decades. Did you not get the memo? Yes, you are correct. It is not "revenue-neutral" as we would normally understand the federal budget. It does rely on trickle-down as explained by DarkSteven above, although he did not mention that trickle down has largely been disproven over the last several decades. It simply does not work. As for Ryan's comment that "it would take me too long to go through all the math" - this would be better understood as "my handlers have asked me to say this; I don't understand if this will work or not; I have no true solutions to the budgetary issues of the country."

DarkSteven -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 8:00:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. It can be reduced by upping taxes, by cutting spending, or a combination.

mnottertail -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 8:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. What is the deficit but spending beyond ones means, drawing from tomorrow so as to have today? Before one can contemplate any reduction one must stop adding to it in the first place. Cute, one does not reduce outlays by reduction of income. I guess since simpltonian fixes are in vogue here, why dont we just disband the military? It isn't that we have much to defend here at home anymore, we've given all that away, and we spend more on our military than something like the next 10-17 countries combined, and any cuts contemplated always work out to troops, but not to top brass or toys that are mostly bought from overseas parts. Actually, some hard looks at EVERYTHING, like we might not be able to fund the National Azaelea collection directly anymore, and rely on donations if people want to see it, stuff like that....

mnottertail -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 8:04:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The deficit can only be reduced by raising taxes. It can be reduced by upping taxes, by cutting spending, or a combination. Where we are at today, it will require the combination, not one or the other.

Yachtie -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 8:09:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Cute, one does not reduce outlays by reduction of income. Of course not. One must reduce outlays to a sustainable outlay of one tax dollar in one tax dollar out. It's impossible to outlay two or three out for each one in. Even the wealthy cannot support that bill. But that is exactly what is being demanded by the entitlement class, and it's going to be hell when it collapses.

mnottertail -> RE: Paul Ryan's math (10/1/2012 8:12:44 AM)
That entitlement class, is that the 47% or is that the 53% or is that the 1%. I don't see the 'entitlement' class doing anything but howling about lowering taxes for corporations.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875