.
As with the Presidential debate itself, the final product may differ substantially from what has been promised.
I’m leaning towards attending the Obama for America event at Pepz Pepperoni Pizza at 165 S. Harbor Blvd, La Habra, CA 90631, between La Habra and Lambert. What about you?
If you’ll be going someplace where others are invited to attend, let me know and I’ll plug it and its sponsor here. – Greg.
*
I’d been meaning to suggest – but I’ve been too busy with my Anaheim piece – let’s watch it here! You know live-blogging? That won’t work because only one of us can be contributing to this post at one time. But ALL OJ readers can live-blog the debates in the comments section to this post. OK? Let’s try that. – Vern.
I’ll be in Steven Colbert’s writers’ room. Watching someone make some good use out of the copious amount of crap we’re about to be fed tonight ought to be good for the soul.
i will be at church, praying for a miricle
*What? Dancing with the Stars…..the Replay….isn’t on? OK….we will bite and watch
the first of the Fantasy Presidential Debates. What do you think? How many touchdowns will the President score? How many fumbles will Romney have? How many interceptions of issues with both players have? Will Jim Learah…..throw up before the first commercial break? We could start a pool…
*Romney was coached in the “ME-TOO” Counter Attack of Debate Tactics.
What that means was that when Obama came up with any position…….Romney Screamed….”Me-Too – Just not YOUR PLAN!” This a typical way to difuse any good idea. i.e.,” NO OBAMA CARE – WE WANT ROMNEY IN THE MORNING!”
He gave it away….when he said: “Tell a lie long enough and someone will believe it! – just not me!” His attitude…..for eight years…..could you imagine?
The President held his water….when everyone of the 50 million people watching knew he wanted to walk over to Mitt and stick his finger right in his chest and say: “Stop lying like a rug – bucko!”
Reelect the Greatest Magical Negro of All Time.
What you lack in originality, you make up for it with staleness.
This was a great place to pick up an eightball or other assorted treats for so long (When it was the All American), then the fine gentleman who got rooked sold it to PEPZ.
It should be fun tonight. I’d suggest wearing nuetral colors (blue) not Orange as the Dodgers contingent will be heavy.
Boy, how things have changed, Raiders games with armed guards to a Presidential debate party!
isn’t there anything better on the tube?
Jeezus, what an ol’ crank you’ve become! My advice; get a bucket of sand, either to stick your head in or kick.
Face it, this is bound to be more fun for me and you than it will be for an old Republican.
True, but his comment on the SA garbage issue is also a tour de force of old man crankiness.
I think both did very well in getting their points across.
I fell asleep twice or 3 times.
Something Romney said sounded a lot like what Bill Clinton said a few years ago when he came to Santa aNA.
Over on Spike TV they are showing an episode of Gangland where there is a riot in Nevada between the Hell’s Angels and the Mongols.
I think that debate started over who had rights to hang out at the Santa Cruz Starbucks.
They chose to use nonverbal communication to get their points across. I think that they used ball peen hammers.
People get cranky when they can’t get their caffeine.
I’ve noticed how those tough bikers love their yuppie Starbucks drinks – their frappucinos and whatnot!
*Defense….Defense…Defense!!
Mitt:
“Five
billiontrillion bucksIs not my tax cut
It’s just a sum
I pushed for the last 18 months
Now I’ll disavow it once.”
Make that 5 TRILLION.
Uhhhhhhmmmmm — finger slipped!
When I get home, I’ll.change the comment #retroactively.
(Judging from Romney’s performance, this seems like a big day for rewriting recent history!)
Has Mitt said that he wants $5T in tax cuts or is that others’ interpretation of his “plan” (yes, I use that term loosely)? I feel like it is others interpretation of his thoughts- seems like maybe Romney better defined the overall goal of his tax strategy.
Let’s see…. this was Etch-a-Sketch night, eh?
The Bishop was pretty well prepared. But it’s uncomfortable watching him, he moves like a nervous rabbit, and has this grimace/squint thing when he listens.
The Bishop denies his tax cut is 5 trillion, though that’s what he’s been saying for 18 months.
The Bishop also denies that there’s a tax break for companies that move their jobs overseas – is that true?
He wants to repeal Obamacare but keep all the nice fuzzy parts of it, and refuses to say HOW, because of course he would have to sit down with Congress to figure that out.
He wants to repeal Dodd-Frank but keep the nice parts of that too, and refuses to say how that would work, because he’d have to sit down and work it out with Congress.
Will people fall for this?
All that is true. It was a lying attempt to move to the center when presented with a large national audience.
It was also, as a debate, a very solid performance on Romney’s part. The President came off as ill-prepared. Did this guy actually prep? Every talking point sounded like a wonkish recitation from a campaign stop. Where was the fire in the belly? Where was a measure of aggressiveness? Where was the ability to call Romney on his lies? And what the hell is up with the constant looking down and note taking? Lots of hemming and hawing. Very poor optics for the President…along with Romney’s creepy grimace/smirk thing.
This President better get his shit together or we’re looking at President Romney come November 6.
I disagree, I didn’t see Obama as “ill-prepared”, but more as the grown-up in the room talking about choices. I guess if you are as dumb-as-dirt and uninformed you might believe in Romney’s magical policies (sans facts). I think the president looked reasonable and Romney looked manic.
Well, I didn’t say I believed Romney. I said he won the debate.
The President looked tired and uninspired. Look, I like the guy, and I’ll vote for him, but I’m not afraid to call this a poor performance for the President. Romney DID have a bit of a manic quality…enhanced by the President’s lack of energy.
I realize some of the President’s supporters can’t bring themselves to admit something like that.
I know you’re for Obama, but I still disagree with you (and all of the MSNBC commentators).
For me (and my sister who just frantically called me), the president’s low key, fact based demeanor is what I (we) like. Remember he’s trying to win over those “independents” who can’t take ANY partisanship. Romney looked upset and crazed and he basically denied his entire tax plan that he’s been touting. Maybe if you just landed on the planet yesterday, Romney might have seemed okay, but if you had ANY knowledge at all, not so much.
I too admire Obama’s calm. And I think his calm and pragmatism appealed greatly to independents…four years ago.
But these dynamics tend to flip back and forth. In the wake of Bush’s “fire first and aim later” approach, Obama was what the country needed…and wanted. This time around, I’m not so sure his calm will be such a large determining factor.
face it anoster your boy nobama got waxed tonight , even your far left goons bill i hate america mahre and ed the pig schultz said mitt in a rout . kind of like the upcoming election between diamond and huff , A ROUT
And the Bishop really went overboard with the “concern” eyes. As he knew he had to with the reputation he’s earned of late.
Tax Cut- Is it really him saying the $5T or was it others interpreting his “plan'”?
Tax Break for Moving- Confusing section of the debate and misunderstand by many…Obama was saying that if a US company has costs associated with moving overseas then they would get a deduction for those costs. For example I pay a moving company to pick up my machinery and move it to Mexico or I pay Deloitte to help me decide how best to structure the business. Yes, those costs are likely deductible just as they otherwise would be as general trade/business expenses.
Obamacare- I would hope he wants to keep the good parts and of course, he would have to work it out with Congress- isn’t that how it works? The POTUS can’t just make policy, they have to work Congress- and that is a good thing.
Dodd Frank- Again, glad someone wants to keep good things of regulation and not just repeal it to the bare bones. Yes he has to work it out with Congress- that is how it works it seems.
Thanks for the answer on “Tax Break For Moving.” Yeah, that could loosely be described as a “tax break for moving jobs overseas,” and just as plausibly be called NOT exactly that.
Obamacare. As you MUST know, keeping the parts people like about Obamacare – the no-pre-existing, the keep-your-kid-on-till-26, all the rest – is just not economically viable without the part people don’t like – the individual mandate. Romney’s peddling fairy dust on that.
I am by no means a Healthcare expert, but I have to imagine that there are other ways to pay for the good parts of Obamacare. Yes, he is lacking in details but I feel like he is trying to set the stage and then fill in the script (details) with the cast (Congress) he has to work with if he is hired. Not sure if it that strategy will work or not…
This is from Mitt’s own website;
MITT’S PLAN
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.
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)
*****************
That 20% across the board tax cut equals the 5 trillion.
From USA TODAY;
Candidates spar over taxes on the wealthy and the middle class
North America’s energy independence and job creation
October 3. 2012 – In the first presidential debate Wednesday night, President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney packed their responses with accusations about each other’s policies and defenses of their own.
Here are a few claims that deserve a deeper look:
Tax cuts
Claim: Obama says Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes by $5 trillion over 10 years, inflating the deficit.
Facts: Romney has proposed cutting tax rates by 20% in each bracket, which, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says would cost $4.9 trillion over 10 years. Romney said his plan will be paid for by curtailing tax deductions, so middle-class people pay less overall and upper-income people don’t see lower taxes. Last month in Ohio, Romney said middle-class people would see little change in their taxes under his plan.
Romney has declined to say what tax deductions he would end. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has contended that middle-class families would see taxes rise about $2,000 a year under Romney’s plan if he keeps his promise to make the tax reform revenue-neutral, arguing that it can’t be done without ending popular middle-class deductions on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, has said that the gap can be closed by ending tax breaks targeting the wealthy, including tax exemptions for interest on municipal bonds.
Romney said he would not raise taxes and would not approve any tax cut that would expand the deficit. He argued that tax cuts will increase investment, putting more people to work and increasing the taxpaying population.
Not sure which is your comments versus the sites…it seems that you/they are interpeting that a 20% cut in tax RATES is equal to a $5T cut in TAX. That is not true when you couple the cut in rates with reductions in deductions and/credits…so, essentially even if you reduce the rate but increase the taxable income you easily can get to the same spot without cutting taxes by $5T.
So, it sounds to me from your items sited above that it is people’s interpretation of his 20% rate cut without considering the reductions in deductions. Probably the most important thing is that he has specifically said that he will not raise taxes on the middle class…I think he has said that pretty steadily. Some may not believe him, but lets not say that he wants to increase middle class taxes when he has said he won’t.
As I understand it Romney’s tax plan of cutting taxes by 20% amounts to a 4.8 trillion dollar deficit over ten years. Economists have played around with various budget cuts but can only come up with a couple of trillion if you don’t hit middle class deductions like mortgage and healthcare. That leaves 3 TRILLION unaccounted for.
You may want to BELIEVE that you can cut taxes and preserve middle class deductions without running up the deficit, but I think we bought those magic beans under Bush and we all know what they grew, the deficit.
Anonster re “”…if you don’t hit middle class deductions…” again, if you lower rates for everyone, you can change deductions without raising taxes. I feel like this is the point that is missing. Essentially, yes he may need to lower the mortgage deduction for the middle class (and even more so for the upper class) because he is also lowering the tax rate- lower deduction is offset by lower rate. It is essentially lessening the fact that gov’t is picking winners and losers. Maybe an overly simple example will help…if someone’s taxable income before mortgage is $100K and has $30K in mortgage expense and the effective tax rate is 20%, they would pay $14K in tax. Now, if you reduce tax rates by 20% to 16% and but you limit the mortgage deduction to only $15K max, they would still pay $14K (rounded). So yes, he may limit middle class tax deductions but he is also reducing their rates which will put bring people to a more even playing field (i.e. in the above example, bringing a renter and a homeowner closer to each other tax wise instead of the gov’t subsidizing the homeowners choice to buy a home to such a great extent).
He has made it clear that he will not raise taxes on the middle class; some may not believe that because some think tanks are limiting their case study analysis within certain parameters. You can cut tax RATES by adjusting middle class tax deductions (and everyone’s deductions, not just middle class), without increasing their tax burden as a group (some will see an increase, some will see a decrease within the same income class).
If you re-read the same article that you posted above (the long one), I think the US Today portion, you will see the following: “Romney said he would not raise taxes and would not approve any tax cut that would expand the deficit.” With that being a guiding principle, there should not be a question of what he wants to do…how it is implemented, for sure, but not his desire. Actually, re-read the entire USA Today portion as it has some gems such as “Romney said his plan will be paid for by curtailing tax deductions, so middle-class people pay less overall and upper-income people don’t see lower taxes.” It is a shift towards leveling the field.
The problem with “Romney said he would not raise taxes and would not approve any tax cut that would expand the deficit.” is the man is a known liar and will say anything to get elected. But even if you did want to believe him, we’ve been sold this bill of goods before; the Bush tax cuts.
Answer me this; how much of our current deficit (and future increases) are attributable to the Bush tax cuts?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html
Romney’s recipe; more of the same, but trust me, this time it will turn out different.
Oh and let’s NOT FORGET that Romney also wants to INCREASE military spending by 2.1 trillion over that same 10 year period.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/news/economy/romney-defense-spending/index.htm
Does any of this seem eerily familiar?
It sounds like no matter what he says, it will not matter to you then…your mind is tainted (not bad, just is-maybe more “influenced”) by your thinking that he lies about everything. I am not sure why you would need me to answer your question, when you already have the answer in the Huff Post article.
It is not the same, although I can see why one would think so…we are in a different economic and war environment now as compared to when the cuts went into effect. Just as Obama had said (paraphrased)- we should not raise taxes during a recession. Debatable if we are still in a recession or not (technically, i don’t think we are, but sure feels like it for a lot of us).
BTW, the HP article is not only about the Bush cuts for those over $250K, but all the cuts…are you in favor of letting all the tax cuts go? If not, then you should probably reference something that is more in line with your thinking so we can better gauge the gravity of the situation.
I am not going to defend the defense spending…sorry, wrong guy.
I don’t think this is just about my having a closed mind, I admit that I am very partisan, but to trust Romney when he won’t be specific and when most economists can’t make his numbers add up seems like the height of folly to me.
You are also right that times are different, Bush’s tax cuts at the time were mostly unnecessary and favored the wealthy. We’re still in a slow economy, that’s why Obama wants to roll the Bush tax cuts back only on people making over 200,000/250,000. Romney’s plan is going to hit people making over 100,000 and up and will still be favorable for the very wealthy.
So that’s the real question, should it be the upper middle class or the very-upper middle class?
anonster/BOUTWELL,
To give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his trustworthiness is to close one’s eyes to his very REAL history of morphing his stances on quite a few issues. BOUTWELL, are you seriously telling us all that we should just casually ignore that fact and, what, are you suggesting that we should all just be nice and trust him?
Anonster- I never said you had a closed mind. It is actually “real” to not actually give very specific items because he knows that he has to figure it out with Congress. How many times are campaign promises kept? Very rarely…they morph and change based upon compromise and working with the system and framework. I for one hate that I can’t dive into his specifics, but at the same time I know that if he gave specifics beyond his guiding principles, it won’t mean much at the end of the day b/c he can’t just snap his fingers and make it happen. I am probably one of those who believes that most people think the POTUS has more power than they actually do.
Most economists are not taking into account the reduction in deductions. Dive into their reports. They disclose this I believe. They think that it is going to be a 20% tax cut. That only the rich will have some deductions reduced when in actuality, the middle class will have some deductions diminished but still overall will pay about the same as before–it is mearly simplifying the concept and lessening the concept that the gov’t picks winners and losers on tax policy (i.e. homeowners vs renters, parents vs no kids, charitable types vs non-charitable givers, etc…).
Bush’s tax cuts helped most everyone that paid tax…obviously if you look at magnitude, those that pay the most are going to benefit the most in pure dollars. If the middle class did not benefit greatly from the Bush tax cuts, then we would not have to argue over whether they should be extended for the middle class, because there would be nothing to extend. Obama said that it would not be right to raise taxes during a recession even on the rich…he did not say that we should not raise taxes only on the non-rich.
Anon- I really am actually OK in “morphing” of stances…although I likely am not using that term the same as you. I have no problem getting more educated on a topic and changing a position. Listening to those around me and changing a position. Having a life experience that changes my stance on a position. Having an “light-bulb” type experience that changes my stance. That is just smart in my book. Others may call it flip flopping or whatever, but in my environment, if you never change a position and grow smarter on a topic, you are likely not going to succeed in the long term. I would never tell anyone to just ignore facts…however, we are likely not seeing the facts the same as each other.
What I do think we should try to do is not state things as fact that is not such as saying that Romney’s plan is to cut taxes by $5T and he is going to raise taxes on the middle class…that is not a fact. Others may want to make it a fact, which is part of the “game” but part of the game that turns a lot of people off- although entirely effective, unfortunately.
BOUTWELL – so let me make sure I have this right…
When, in May, Romney makes his infamous “47 percent” remark, and then today says that he was “completely wrong”, that is not a craven political flip-flop to you…it’s a smart, measured, in-depth reassessment of a position he held 4 months ago?
Seriously?
I love how people will take one item and try to corner someone in…yes, it was a flip flop. Was he trying to get the support of the people he was speaking to at the time just like most politicians? Likely. Was he over the top…yep. Was he right that likely 47% of people will no matter what vote for Obama, likely IMO. Did he re-evaluate it now…yes. Did he do this b/c it came out in the public…yep. What does he really believe…not sure- probably somewhere in the middle.
Just like so many politicians before him and many to come after- he was wrong. If you would like to try to make me out to defend Romney on every item (heck, I had to google the topic you brought up to get up to speed…), you won’t get me to do that…he has a lot of faults. There is no perfect candidate.
By the way, do you understand the tax issues that we have been discussing…how you can cut rates and re-jigger deductions/exemptions/credits and not hit the middle class with higher taxes?
That 47% statement was weird and wrong in so many ways. I hate to call it a “remark” or “comment,” it was more like he was explaining carefully to a trusted group of fundraisers what the philosophy of his campaign was. And when he was caught saying that by clandestine camera work, and after massive outrage claims he was just “wrong,” … can you see how it’s really hard for most of us to believe he didn’t mean it and doesn’t still? It really wasn’t long ago, and was not off-the-cuff.
But that’s, of course, famously, the percentage of people who don’t pay federal income taxes for one reason or another. Many have pointed out, that figure includes the military, the elderly, and the working poor – and MANY of those people vote Republican, and will probably still vote for Romney. He doesn’t realize that? It sounds, in BOUTWELL’s comment, like he doesn’t realize that either. You both seem to equate the percentage of folks who are off the hook for federal income taxes with folks who are loyal Obama supporters. That’s weird.
“What does he really believe…not sure”
I rest my case.
Rest your case…are you referring to how you don’t answer a question even from someone who has answered yours?
By the way, when you quote someone and don’t quote it in its entirety, you should not close the quote w/o an indication of such…
“are you referring to how you don’t answer a question even from someone who has answered yours?”
I know you’d love to change the subject from the specific point I addressed and you chose to answer, and that was a very adroit attempt on your part, but I ain’t biting.
Change the topic…craziness! This thread that you keep hitting “reply” to was about taxes! It is pretty easy to see that as you have to scroll all the way up to my tax post about the $5T each time we post here…you changed the topic to “morphing”, I am respectful enough to answer. Thanks for the lack of reciprocal respect. I find that a lot these days and it is unfortunate.
If you don’t see that my response to anonster’s comment WAS related to the tax issue insofar as it relates to Romney’s morphing and the difficulty in trusting what he really believes, then, well, I’d say you’re blind.
You may think I am blind others usually just say that I don’t listen! I do have enough respect for you and your thoughts to answer your questions. Like I said before, it is unfortunate that I see way too much lack of reciprocal respect, not just here but in many aspects of daily living, even more unfortunate from someone who actually has some good points…nice.
You don’t get to decide what people write in their comments. If that is an uncomfortable dynamic for you, then perhaps you shouldn’t be engaging in this whole wacky blog commenting thing.
You are right…all I can try to do is engage in meaningful conversation and try to learn a thing or two. Lack of mutual respect…thanks! I will say that this new blog thing is definitely helping me learn how to communicate better with my 6, 4, and 2 year olds though.
little boutwells!
Vern (not sure how you inserted your comment into the middle of the string…)- I took the 47% comment in pieces…there likely are 47% who no matter what will vote for Obama. He can’t win unless he is trying to get the other 53%. If you are trying to convince someone who has no chance of voting for you to vote for you, it is a waste of time and resources. Yes, there was a lot more to it than that…he got out of hand IMO. Just like all politicians do.
I am not sure where you get the impression about the composition of the 47% with regards to those who don’t pay income taxes…remember, I deal with this every single day. Heck, I am still doing tax returns right now! October 15th is only a week and a half away- which means it is the final day to file timely 1040’s. I likely have a greater grasp on a lot of this than most. I deal with the elderly, I deal with students, I deal with those who are on hard times, I deal with those who can’t afford my normal rates, so they don’t pay them. Yes, I understand the composition and if it came across that I don’t, then it is either bad communication on my part or bad interpretation (remember, people don’t speak with an accent, we hear an accent). Flame on…
Oh, I know you know all that. That’s why we like having you around. It’s just that, Mitt said Non-federal-income-taxpayers = Obama voters. And it sounded like you echoed him.
Not sure everyone likes me around, but that is fine. I can handle it.
If you are making your determination that I think non-income tax payers are Obama voters through “Was he right that likely 47% of people will no matter what vote for Obama, likely IMO.” then you are hearing with an accent. I do believe that there are mid-40% of voters that will vote for Obama no matter what (and vice versa for R’s) which is why everyone is trying to get the undecided voter…do I think that those same voters are non-income taxpayers- absolutely not. My experience is actually that there is a good % of non-income taxpayers who are anti-gov’t and anti-Democratic beyond belief.
Of course! And lots of well to do who love what Obama is doing and trying to do. It’s Romney who seems terribly confused, probably from never getting out of his little circle. I’m glad you were NOT echoing him. Gotta get some sleep, barking at the OCTA board in the morning. Nite.
BOUTWELL,
You seem to want to give Mitt a pass on specifics. It is his economic plan. Shouldn’t he KNOW what a 20% across the board tax cut adds up to? Shouldn’t he HAVE economists who have run the numbers and can make them work. Why is it all a big secret?
Many of the economists who’ve looked at his plan take into consideration the reductions in deductions you’ve mentioned and have even factored in some realistic growth rates and yet they can’t make his numbers work because NONE of the offsets he’s offered are large enough. The only way to make his numbers work are to eliminate deductions for families making over $100,000 a year. That means those families will pay MORE under Romney’s plan. Those families are middle class.
You’re also claiming that Romney can’t give specifics because congress will change his plan, but FIRST he has to submit a plan. Let’s see it.
I also think it’s foolish to separate his plan for increased military spending from his economic plan. Where is that money coming from?
You state; “Bush’s tax cuts helped most everyone that paid tax…”
yes, but they also added enormously to the deficit. That is the scenario we are trying to avoid with Romney’s proposed tax cuts.
REMEMBER, BUSH MADE THE SAME PROMISES.
As for Obama’s plan, he’s saying those folks who are making over $200,000/250,000 can afford to pay more and will under his plan. Will we still be running a deficit? Probably and for years to come too. There is no magic bullet.
I think “magic” is the key word here. It’s as if Romney’s telling us that we can eat chocolate cake and ice cream all day everyday and still lose weight, but wait there’s more. We can even eat deep fried butter (the extra military spending) too. Yet he can’t prove it because the dietitians (congress) might change it.
Personally I think this sort of magical thinking dangerous. There are no EASY answers to our economic problems. Romney is offering us rainbows and lollipops. For instance, cutting PBS ain’t gonna make a dent. Where are the HARD choices. Until he comes up with them you can figure he’s just “politicking” and selling a load of bull.
Anonster- thanks for you post and you bring up some good points which I will try address, although I really do need to work with my team and taxpayers to complete a bunch of complicated returns for the Oct 15th tax deadline so we can keep this country running…
“Shouldn’t he KNOW what a 20% across the board tax cut adds up to?” Yes, I don’t think that one can claim that he doesn’t know what a 20% tax- just under $5T over 10 years BUT you also have to go to the next statement of his which is that it is offset by cuts in deductions/exemptions/credits. He has said that he will not raise taxes on the middle class and that the wealthy will not pay less. He has said that he will not approve any tax cut that expands the deficit. if his 20% rate cut goal can’t be met w/o expanding the deficit, he has said he won’t do it. If his 20% rate cut can’t be met w/o raising taxes on the middle class, then he won’t do it. Essentially, it is keeping with where we are at right now in terms of deficit impact but it is trying to level the field and lessen the gov’t ability to pick winners and lsoers. I would love specifics (hey, I am one that loved crunching the #’s on 9/9/9…that was fun, no I am not joking, it was), but I also know that those specifics don’t mean much unless we lived in a dictatorship. The article that you posted from USA Today appears to show that some economists do say that it can be done, so it seems that there are some smart macro types who have indicated that it is possible.
“…can’t make his numbers work because NONE of the offsets he’s offered are large enough.” As you previously said, he has not given specifics and hence a lot of the studies are not taking into account general ideas and only looking at the specifics of what deductions are reduced. Since the specifics about which deductions and to what extent they are reduced have not been stated (other than him saying he won’t raise taxes on the middle class and that the rich won’t pay less), the studies are of course not able to make it work. Again, lack of specifics allow the economists to make assumptions that are not accurate.
“The only way to make his numbers work are to eliminate deductions for families making over $100,000 a year.” Of course! That is what I have been saying. If you are reducing tax rates, you can reduce or even eliminate deductions WITHOUT HAVING THEM PAY MORE TAX! If you reduce or eliminate deductions without the correlative tax rate cut, it is a huge problem and would have a tax increase. If you cut the rate without the correlative reduction/elimination of deductions/exemptions/credits, you would have a tax reduction. You have to do them both together. From a professional point of view, it is leveling the field and lessening the impact of the gov’t picking tax winners and losers based on behavior.
“…but FIRST he has to submit a plan.” (re specifics and congress) I have been in plenty of high level strategic meetings to where the leader will start off by saying, this is my goal and these are the rules. When someone says, well how are we getting there…the answer is, look to the person to your right, left and across from you- get to know them and lets figure it out. The leader does not have to bring the first proposal. Often when that happens, the best ideas never even come up IMO. They are tabled because the discussion was tainted prior to it really allowed to get going. Most of the time is spent tearing apart the plan and finding problems with it instead of keeping the goal in mind and collectively finding the right path and the details to get there. Part of leadership is working with the team that you have around you…I find that Team Think is much more effective than Me Think.
Military- Yeah, I am not a big proponent of spending more on gov’t programs especially when those involved are not really asking for it (I have not dove into it but I know one of our groups here at the office indicated that those in charge of the military say they don’t really need the additional spending). I have to imagine that it is paid for by optimistic thinking about an improving economy and expanded tax base with more people working and paying tax.
Sorry, I really do need to get some work done so everyone can file returns with the proper amount of tax reported…
Well, I guess if you want to believe that Romney has some magical offsets or as you put it “reductions in deductions” that no other economists know about or can figure in, then by all means, BELIEVE HIM.
My point (and most economists) is that there are no magical offsets, that his economic plan has to play by the same rules that every one else’s plays by.
He is going to HAVE to make those hard choices too. He just isn’t going to tell us what they are BEFORE the election because they won’t be popular.
So he’s either LYING about knowing what those cuts will be or he’s LYING about running up the deficit. Choose one.
Or you can continue to believe in the Romney “magic”.
BOUTWELL,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. One last point;
“The only way to make his numbers work are to eliminate deductions for families making over $100,000 a year.” Of course! That is what I have been saying. If you are reducing tax rates, you can reduce or even eliminate deductions WITHOUT HAVING THEM PAY MORE TAX!”
But that is NOT what most economists have found. Those making over $100,000 WILL PAY MORE.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/romney-vow-to-lower-middle-class-taxes-at-odds-with-cap#p2
Mitt either has a plan that has been fleshed out to make the numbers work or he doesn’t. Any politician can make claims, but now is the time for proof.
It is not magic…it is an overhaul of the tax code…it is complicated for sure.
The economist that you refer to in the Biz Week article, Princeton’s Harvey Rosen for example only assumed that there would be elimination of deductions for those earning more than $100K. Why only over $100K? If we reduce the tax rate for someone making $70K should they also be able to have a reduction in deductions? They would pay about the same as a group in whole (i.e. NOT a tax increase, reduction in rate coupled with a reduction in deductions = neutral). The economists are picking and choosing and trying to use their interpretation (ME THINK) as opposed to sitting down and figuring how to do it like it would actually be done (TEAM THINK/WE THINK). Their analysis is only as good as the data assumptions that they use.
I seriously have to stop responding, but I know I won’t…thank goodness for multiple monitors!
You like articles…here you go, not everyone agrees:
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class
Not going to argue that his research and analysis may be slanted (he is a self stated tax reformist), although I believe that most economic studes are slanted based on the data assumptions….amazing how a 0.1% change in assumption can have drastic impacts upon results.
By the way, why does everyone always say that any shortfall will hit the middle class…why can’t it just hit the higher earners? He has said that he won’t sign tax reform if it increases taxes on the middle class.
BOUTWELL,
I read your article and found it short on substance, but long on assumptions. Here’s the Tax Policy Center’s analysis;
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Romney-plan.cfm
Bottom line; without specifics his plan really is “trust me”. I don’t believe you can hand out tax cuts, increase military spending and bring down the deficit with just a little tax code overhaul. He’s still promising LOWER TAXES FOR EVERYONE, INCREASED MILITARY SPENDING AND NO INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT.
WHERE DOES THE MAGIC MONEY COME FROM?
You might say growth, but realistically the next few years are probably not going to be boom years. You can’t ignore what’s happening around the globe. Probably our best shot at growth will come from alternative energy and I don’t see Romney embracing that.
Finally if you believe the man who’s had his accountants scouring the globe for the lowest tax rates and dodges is going to raise taxes on the wealthy, then you’re beyond reach. His rich friends are counting on him for amnesty (for their overseas money) and little things like his proposal to eliminate the estate tax. That alone will cost the treasury 1.2 TRILLION dollars over 10 years but only affects 2% of america’s wealthiest families.
I am familiar with the TPC report- it is long on assumptions. It is missing the two biggest things that Romney has been saying- he won’t raise taxes on the middle class and the rich should not expect to pay less. If they incorporated those two assumptions into the equation, it is a different result. Maybe that result is, the economy would have to grow at X% and we don’t see that happening based on current projections. He is not saying lower taxes for everyone I believe (I am sure you can find a quote saying that he has said it though, just as Obama has said he should not raise taxes on upper income earners…), he is saying keep the taxes the same for the middle class and don’t expect to pay less if you are a high earner. From someone who puts food on the table for his family due to the complexity of the Tax Code, this may sound strange, but simplicity can be a good thing.
You are right about the “trust me” though I agree. Just like pretty much every politicians promise…Trust Me- lower taxes for the rich will flow down to the middle class by creating middle class jobs, Trust Me- lower taxes for the middle class will be best for the economy, Trust Me- 47% +/- of the public can’t afford to pay a dollar of income tax, Trust Me- those who make over $250K yr can afford to pay more, Trust Me- this war is needed, Trust Me- the war will be over and the troops will be home, Trust Me- tax credits will create jobs even though that are incredibly difficult to calculate and will ultimately be attacked by the IRS (can you tell this one is really a thorn for me right now), Trust Me, Trust Me, Trust Me…it is all about trust. If people don’t trust that Romney and believe that Obama can be trusted, or vica versa, then they will vote accordingly. It is all a crystal ball question, although sometimes I think a Magic 8 Ball would be just as accurate.
I am not beyond reach…the financially driven world that I live in day in day out just influences a lot of my thinking. Everyone’s own experiences dictate their thinking. For example, a lot of the “rich” that I work with have savings goals that the first thing that gets paid is taxes, then their savings account, then they pay their fixed bills (i.e. mortgage and other “have to’s”), THEN they spend what is left over for vacations, entertainment, restaurants (which is often more entertainment than food), etc…If they have a great year, then they will adjust their savings upward after they take care of their taxes, but if they have less leftover due to taxes going up, then what gets cut? Not their savings goals unless things get really bad, but instead it is discretionary spending for cars, vacations, entertainment, going out to eat, etc… Taxes go up, less money to spend in the general economy until it gets to the point that they have to decrease savings. Taxes go down, more money to spend in the general economy and more to save. Yeah, I know that
Anonster…by the way, you do know that the TPC does not include any reductions to deductions/credits/exemptions right? That is a HUGE part of his strategy. If a group is only looking at one side of it, then they are not looking at the entirety. Perhaps, one cannot blame them for not including them as there are not details out on it, but one could also not blame them for saying “not enough info available to perform an analysis on his plan”…
BOUTWELL,
If you go to each campaign’s website and compare their tax plans, on some levels they’re similar. Obama is a little bit more specific, showing a few of the hard choices that will HAVE to be made in order to raise revenue.
Romney stills seems to be IMPLYING lower taxes for all, especially for the wealthy; “… relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship…” or maybe I’m interpreting that wrong. Why won’t Romney provide us with ANY of his hard choices (except for cutting Big Bird)?
MITT’S PLAN (from his website);
Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.
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)
************************************************
Obama’s tax plan from his website;
Tax Cuts for Small Businesses
President Obama firmly believes that entrepreneurs and small businesses are engines of economic growth, and that their investments and innovation have been at the forefront of our economic recovery. That’s why he and his Administration have focused on strengthening small businesses by signing into law 18 tax cuts for small businesses. These tax credits are helping small business hire and grow, provide affordable health insurance to employees, and invest in new machinery and equipment
Tax Reform
The tax code has become increasingly complicated and unfair. Under today’s tax laws, those who can afford expert advice can avoid paying their fair share and interests with the most connected lobbyists can get exemptions and special treatment written into our tax code. While many of the tax incentives serve important purposes, taken together the tax expenditures in the law are inefficient, unfair, duplicative, or even unnecessary.
That is why President Obama has called on Congress to enact comprehensive tax reform that meets the following five principles:
1. Lower tax rates.
The tax system should be simplified and work for all Americans with lower individual and corporate tax rates and fewer brackets.
2. Cut inefficient and unfair tax breaks.
Cut tax breaks that are inefficient, unfair, or both so that the American people and businesses spend less time and less money each year filing taxes and cannot avoid their responsibility by gaming the system. This includes cutting tax preferences for high-income households; eliminating special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; closing loopholes for investment fund managers; and eliminating benefits for corporate jet owners.
3. Cut the deficit.
Cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade through tax reform, including the expiration of tax cuts for single taxpayers making over $200,000 and married couples making over $250,000.
4. Increase job creation and growth in the United States.
Make America stronger at home and more competitive globally by increasing the incentive to work and invest in the United States.
5. Observe the Buffett Rule.
As multi-billionaire Warren Buffet has pointed out, his average tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. No household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of their total income in taxes than middle-class families. Read more about tax fairness and the Buffett Rule
Understanding Where Your Tax Dollars Are Spent
In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that, for the first time ever, American taxpayers would be able to go online and see exactly how their federal tax dollars are spent. Just enter a few pieces of information about your taxes, and the taxpayer receipt will give you a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care.
*********************************************
I don’t get the point you were trying to make about your “rich” clients. So they plan for taxes, so what? This country is in a financial hole and the “rich” have had a relatively light burden over the past 11 years that has contributed mightily to digging that hole. The “rich” are the only one’s ABLE to pay more and will HAVE to if we are ever going to get the deficit under control. At least Obama is being HONEST about that fact.
Sorry, really poor communication on my part about the rich- was trying to write and wrangle three little ones to the car at the same time. My point being that when you raise taxes on the rich, they spend less on general items because they spend what is left after they pay tax, save and pay mandatory expenses. Most believe that if taxes are raised on the rich that that they will just save less. My experiences indicates that they will save the same (up to a point obviously) and putt less money into the general economy. This is opposite of a lot of people as they save what is left, whereas the rich who know what they are doing will save before they spend. Hopefully that makes sense…
I did not hear all of the debate but I do believe he spoke about putting a cap on deductions (I.e. $15K, $20K…), as well as putting energy subsidies on the table. It sounds to me like there are very few deductions that would be off the table. Although, I know he wants to keep the R&D credit.
BOUTWELL,
I wonder what you are considering “rich”? I thought the whole reason we give such huge tax breaks to the rich is not so they will save, but so they will invest and create jobs.
Obviously we have a fundamental disagreement, I don’t believe that the country can continue to cut taxes and increase military spending without blowing up the deficit or eliminating investments in our future (education, infrastructure etc.) and shredding the social safety net. At some point we have to raise revenue.
I do not think that tax cuts on top of tax cuts (Romney would leave in place ALL of the Bush tax cuts and we already know what those do to the deficit) even if you overhaul the tax code, that it could spur the enormous growth that would be needed to offset such folly. It seems such pie-in-the-sky and I’m amazed to see serious folks like yourself, think that it could work.
If you can afford the time, I would like your take on the elimination of the estate tax and also the Buffet Rule. Thanks for the reasonable discussion.
My definition of rich is not so much defined as income generation as it is ability to save and live well below their means over a period of time. One or two high income years for example, does not make someone rich but someone who makes $60K (pick a number, it does not matter once you get past a minimum) and saves methodically because they keep expenses in check (actually, “super check”) can be rich in my book. Essentially, it means that someone who has saved over a number of years, and lives so far below their income levels that they are able to continue to save in order to take care of themselves and their family today and in the future while also afford nice things.
“I thought the whole reason we give such huge tax breaks to the rich is not so they will save, but so they will invest and create jobs.” Unfortunately, I must not be explaining the saving/spending model above…essentially, as a “rich” person, or at least one that wants to continue to be rich so they are financially super responsible, has more money, they spend part of it and would like also invest part of it. HOWEVER, if they have LESS money (i.e. taxes go up), then they will still save the same amount because that is a super important goal of theirs but then that means that they will spend less on non-fixed recurring expenses. Their savings will be the same while they won’t go on that vacation. I am not so much an advocate for cutting taxes as not raising them…although, I would love to cut taxes if possible. So, as net after tax income increases, they spend more and adjust their savings goals, but as net after tax income decreases, they will keep their savings goals the same but decrease their spending. A tax increase has a bigger impact to the downside- they just won’t spend as much because they will still pay their taxes, save, and pay their fixed recurring expenses.
There are a few items that I would like to tackle at more length in an article after Oct 15th tax deadline including AMT, Prop 38, Buffett Rule (actually more like investment income vs ord income)…was not thinking about the estate tax so much, but that is another one which believe it or not would be in somewhat my same line of thinking with Soc Security (yeah, I know two opposite ends, but they have similar tax implications of double taxation).
Big picture on both:
Buffett Rule- In Buffet’s comparison, he was including his secretary’s Soc Sec and Medicare taxes and her employer’s portion of the same in her tax rate…if we are to compare apples to apples, then we have to include the taxes that Buffet (or any hypothetical investor type) “pays” through corporate taxes. I actually am not all that opposed to having somesort of Buffet Rule…I would just utilize the current AMT system to achieve it. Raise it so it is not a middle class tax and take it back to what it was intended for- make sure that the super rich are paying a minimum level of tax.
Estate Tax- With proper advanced planning, a large portion of estate tax can be controlled- transfers, valuations, gifting, charity, multiple complicated transactions… I don’t think that you should necessarily pick a winner in someone who is willing to pay a lot in professional fees to alleviate an estate tax position. The same is likely true with some IRA planning (for example, I bet a lot of Facebook execs have their FB shares in their IRA’s). Overall, the income has already been taxed (in theory) and so therefore I feel it is a double tax…the same as Social Security. Two different ends of the spectrum, but I have trouble with both philosophies- tax me once, I can just complain, but tax me twice and I start to get irritated…
Kids are down (sort of) and I heard that Duck Dynasty re-runs are coming up…seriously, everyone should watch less Fox/MSNBC and more Duck Dynasty, we would all be “happy, happy, happy.”
BOUTWELL,
I think that when discussing tax policy that some parameters need to be in place. Simply saying that someone who is able to save money each month/year is “rich” is not the measure that should be used. It reminds me of my father-in-law’s boast that he could live on welfare and have money left over every month. It’s true, (a depression kid) he never turns on the heat, never uses his oven , never buys clothing or anything else, but that does not make him a practical yardstick for measuring how much money it takes to survive.
How much money one makes is EVERYTHING when talking tax policy. The fact that folks like Romney with multi-million dollar incomes can pay taxes at a lower rate than an active duty soldier is a big deal. That’s why I like the Buffet Rule which basically means that if your income is over a million dollars a year you will pay at least a 30% tax rate. I for one am sick of subsidizing people like Mitt Romney.
Likewise on the estate tax, as it stands now it only affects 2% of american families, but to repeal it entirely would cost billions.
I don’t buy the double-taxation argument, as most of our money is double-taxed, sales tax for instance. For the people inheriting it is new money and it should be taxed as such.
Just wanted to pop in and express my admiration for both sides of a good, substantive, measured discussion.
On my definition of “rich” it was in the context of what I thought you were referring to which is what we were discussing about the “rich” and their budgeting techniques (i.e. pay taxes 1st, savings 2nd, fixed recurring expenses 3rd, and discretionary expenses 4th)…If you want to know what I think “rich” would be in pure income tax perspective, I would imagine that it I could probably peg the number at about $1MM of taxable income per year. I would much rather have a sliding scale on where one lives (i.e. $1MM in NYC is different than in Yreka for example). Your dad, although probably not a good measuring barometer, does in fact show that everyone can contribute a bit more if they really want to.
The reason why income is everything is because that is what our system is based on. If we were to start over and information was free flowing and transparent, I would suggest that possibly even a wealth tax in addition to income would be a something to consider- although it would be against my overall philosophy that simple is better.
On the double taxation with regards to Buffet Rule, I am fine in removing it from the equation but then Buffet needs to remove the employers’ share of SocSec/Medicare from his calculation of his secretary’s tax…one should not have it both ways in order to skew the results. I am more in favor of a Buffet Rule than raising taxes in general simply because it will impact investor types more than anyone else and it is such a high threshold (i.e. raising taxes on those that have taxable income of say $300K as Obama is in favor of is not as favorable in my opinion as those who make over $1MM). Those who make most of their money from earned income will already be there especially when you consider the Obamacare tax surcharges coming down the road. Essentially, make it an Alt Min Tax.
On the estate tax, your comment “it is new money and should be taxed as such” is actually an argument in favor of reform (maybe not repeal) and taxing it as income and it only affecting 2% of families is not accurate. One must know how it works first (apologies, if you do, but the comment leads me to believe you may not). The estate pays the tax and not recipient- splitting hairs, yes, but it is an important distinction. EVERYONE receives a step up in basis on the value of the assets transferred regardless if the estate was taxable or not. Since everyone receives the step up in basis, then it impacts far more families than just those estates that pay the tax. So for example, if someone passes away owning only $1M of AT&T stock that has a basis of $10K because they held it so long. That $1M estate would not pay estate tax but the heir of the deceased would receive a bump up in value to $1M. They can then sell the stock for $1M and pay zero tax on the transaction. So, even though it is new money to the person receiving it, it escapes taxation from an income tax perspective due to the estate step up in basis. That is escaping taxation…as you suggest, it should be taxed. This means that the person who receives the stock when the deceased passed away would have a $10K basis in the stock and they would pay the income tax on the $990K gain, just as if the deceased had sold it and paid the tax themselves. So, the current estate tax impacts everyone that has any appreciated assets when someone passes away.
I don’t know the figures but I have to imagine that it may actually cost more than it brings in due to the step up in basis lost income. Essentially everyone’s unappreciated gain on all assets escapes income taxation and it is traded for taxing the full value of estates over a dollar threshold. It may not be dollar for dollar but it is a lot closer than one may think solely if they look at how much estate tax comes in because you have to offset it by the lost income tax. 2% of estates may pay some sort of estate tax (the vast majority is miniscule compared the largest estates) and receive the step up whereas there are many more estates that don’t pay the estate tax yet still get the step up in basis.
In addition, Buffet also lives another downfall of the estate tax…you can just give it all away and avoid the estate tax. He has an incentive to not sell assets with appreciation and then give it away while he is alive due to the charitable contribution limitations. He is playing the system by the rules that are in place, but it is a big deal.
Boutwell,
Unfortunately, the Buffet Rule alone would not raise enough revenue to start paying down the deficit and meet the rest of our obligations. That’s why Obama hits those making over 200,000/250,000 because realistically, that is where the money is and those folks can afford the tax increase with the least amount of harm to the overall economy. The key word here is REALISTICALLY, Romney’s “plan” is just not, realistic.
Again, it is the VERY SAME bill of goods that Bush was selling. “Tax cuts and tax reform will stimulate growth”. Really?
On the estate tax, I admit that I don’t understand the step up basis rules or how they are even relevant to estates under 5(single)/10 (couple) million, the current estate tax exemptions.
But again, it’s Mitt Romney who wants to eliminate estate taxes altogether, another huge tax cut that favors the really rich.
It’s promises like that, that Romney has been making for the last 18 months of his campaign. And now 30 days before the election he says he has never promised to cut taxes for the rich and you want to believe him? I find THAT hard to believe.
Oh and by the way…
There was a third person on the stage tonight, and I must say that was probably the worst job of debate moderating I’ve ever seen. Completely lacking in imagination and creativity. A complete bore, and the result was a pretty boring debate. I hope Lehrer didn’t lose any sleep putting that together.
so you mean that Jim boy was not able to bring his liberal bias into full effect … ageed.
Yeah that’s what I meant. Thanks for that irrelevant clarification.
It was the altitude, and besides it was past his bed time. The Limo from the resthome was late. I agree no moderator present and it was not a good format.
CJ
Clearly Obama won hands down!
We must reelect that magic Negro.
Do something Gröfaz!
I’m grossed out by both of them
horse misquoted bishop about lowering taxes, healthcare, social security and horse hasn’t done 1 damn thing he promised to do like decrease deficet in fact its higher today.
bishop also did his share of misquoting too.
I’m looking forward to the debate tomorrow night between travis allen and troy edgar
Then please do us all a favor and DON’T VOTE.
ok anonster, that’s brilliant,
I thought it was the R’s who were trying to suppress the vote…ouch, yes, I know it is all in good fun.
Let us know how the Travis Troy debate goes. That’s my district, not yours! But I gotta work tomorrow night. They both seem like jerks to me.
I call Romney “Bishop” not as a chess piece, but because he really is a Bishop in the Mormon Church, which most people don’t seem to realize. He has so much to say that he has no time to mention his strange faith, and his great position of authority in it, so I try to help him out, take up the slack, by mentioning it for him as much as I can.
Vern, perhaps you should qualify what a Bishop is in the LDS, lest a reader see what you wrote and get the very wrong idea.
I just heard he was a bishop. Sounds like you know more than me about it. Is that less than it sounds?
I’m not going to pretend for half a second that I know anything (or am capable of explaining anything) that has to do with the LDS . . . But yes, it doesn’t really mean what you think it means. You should retract the assertion or explain it.
Wiki:
“Bishop is the highest priesthood office of the Aaronic priesthood in the Latter Day Saint movement, and is leader of the Aaronic priesthood in a given ward or congregation. It is almost always held by one who already holds the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest and who serves as the leader of a local congregation of church members. The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest. Each bishop serves with two counselors, which together form a bishopric.”
OK, he’s like a Mormon pastor then. Which is called a bishop.
A bishop in the Mormon Church is the leader of a local congregation, known as a ward. The position of a bishop within the Mormon Church differs from the position with the same name in other denominations. The Mormon position of bishop is similar a rabbi, minister, pastor, or parish priest in other denominations.
And that may be overstating the “bishop” position. A Mormon friend of mine says he is a bishop (or maybe was) – he drinks coffee, swears like a sailer, drinks plenty of alchohol and digs naked chicks. I think that he really is catholic.
I’m satisfied with that explanation (not that I make the rules!)
Of note, he’s not running around the podium labeling himself as Reverend Romney, either . . . so perhaps the religious attacks should stay in the bag for now.
It’s certainly “fair game” I suppose, but using it to label him when he’s not labeling himself seems a little . . . off.
Well of course he doesnt call himself Bishop Romney in public now, for Pete’s sake – he’s running for President and that would SCARE people!
Vern
I know it’s not my district, its alot of districts in OC and I’m interested, I will let you know how it goes.
I didnt know Romney is a Bishop, I knew he is a Mormon, thanks for mentioning that often, it’s helpful.
“he has no time to mention his strange faith”
Vern,
No need to attack Romney’s religion. There are plenty of other areas in which you can go after him but attacking his religion should not be one of them.
Junio…errr….Skally actually does a good job of explaining what a Bishop in the Mormon Church is. My friend is a Bishop of a Ward in Salt Lake City and another friend is the former Bishop of the Somoan Ward here in Santa Ana. A Bishop in LDS is just the local Ward leader. President Thomas Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve are the leaders of the church.
Now I think I’ve truly seen it all.
Seeing Sean Mill encourage someone to not attack someone’s religion is priceless.
I DON’T preminisce Romney’s new catchphrase “trickle-down government” catching on in a big way.
The emperor has no clothes.
Zero sum game. Nobody won any votes last night.
Obama may have set him up for a good example of how to do “rope a dope.” Time will tell.
hahaha Yeah and I just saw the Loch Ness Monster in my bathtub, you’re funny Demagogue, baahahahahaha-tears
I didn’t say that was his plan….but it may well turn out that way.
As far as the Loch Ness Monster in your bathtub….you might want to cut down on the “bath salts.”
After all of that, and we still do not get to vote for president.
Yep, that was Obama’s strategy, to lose the first presidential debate
Carter and Bush #1 both lose on the economy. I wonder if Obama will be sitting at the one term table next year.
You forgot the biggest loser….Gerald Ford. and LBJ……
Nixon and Carter and Bush the Elder…….one term wonders all.
Nixon was elected to 2 terms and quit in his 2nd.
Ford was never elected to any terms.
LBJ opted out of a full term after serving 1 term and the balance of JFK’s 1st term.
BOUTWELL,
Don’t know if you’re still interested, but I saw and this thought of you. This seems to answer Romney’s cap on deductions question and how much it would add up to.
From the DailyKos;
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center ran the numbers. Here’s what they found:
The Tax Policy Center did the math yesterday. Capping deductions at $25,000 would raise $1.3 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years, $3.7 trillion short of what Mr. Romney needs to pay for his tax cut promises. Capping deductions at $17,000 – a level the Romney campaign floated a few weeks ago – would raise $1.7 trillion, a shortfall of $3.3 trillion. Even if Mr. Romney eliminated all itemized deductions, his plan would raise only $2 trillion, a deficit of $3 trillion.