Obama or Romney ?

[JoelKatz]

Home mortgage interest deduction is not a loophole, please look up what a loophole is.

Why is it not a loophole? Other loan interests aren't deductible but home mortgage interest is. Why isn't the special treatment for this one type of interest a loophole? But the point is that there is no objective test for whether something is a loophole. Roughly speaking, it's something that is given a special break relative to other things that are similar and objectively should have similar treatment perhaps as a social engineering way to encourage things, perhaps as a special gift to a privileged group. Objectively, home mortgage interest is essentially no different from credit card interest and there's no reason taxes should treat them differently.

Here are some example loopholes Romney closed in MA while he's governor:
* Removed tax shelter status for fake "real estate lenders", (because banks were posing as real estate lenders to exploit this tax loophole)
* Computer software purchased in Massachusetts stores was subject to sales tax, but the same product downloaded from the Internet was not.

I'm not sure why it's a loophole that you pay Massachusetts tax for a purchase made in a store in Massachusetts but not for a purchase not made in a store in Massachusetts. If that's a "loophole" then so is mortgage interest being deductible if it's for a home but not for a car. At least in the sales tax case, it's the absence of a State nexus that controls taxability, not the product purchased.

* Trusts were used as intermediaries in the sale of businesses to limit taxes on the transactions.
* Companies like WorldCom Inc., headquartered in low-tax states, charged subsidiaries located in MA royalty fees for business ideas coming from the home office. That moved money from MA to another low tax state, lowering taxes.
* Increased fee for use of Public land/facility, instead of subsidized by tax-payer.

Okay, fine. So what *Federal* loopholes would he close?

Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him.

If Romney is going to keep his plan a secret, there is no way I can evaluate whether it's a good plan or not. Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.

Is the earned income tax credit a "loophole"? I don't know if Romney considers it one. Is the home mortgage interest deduction a loophole in Romney's eyes? What about the self-employed health insurance deduction? Frankly, I have no idea what his plan is, and I can't reliably assess who it will help and who it will hurt. This is a huge *negative* against Romney to me.

[jojo69]

Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

[JoelKatz]

Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

The only possibility I can think of is that he's imagining that the plan will create enormous additional economic growth and that will lead to increased tax revenue over the next ten years or so. If that's what he's thinking, his numbers are probably wildly unrealistic. But we can't really know since he won't share them.

On an unrelated note, I was thinking about more about Kokojie's "Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate." That sounds almost treasonous to me. Is winning the election really more important to him than balancing the budget? If Obama will commit to the key elements of Romney's super-awesome tax plan, that means the country probably gets it no matter which candidate wins. Putting winning the election ahead of the country's best interests would totally disqualify him, IMO. I hope that's not what he's thinking.

[BoardGameCoin]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

[kokojie]

Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

The only possibility I can think of is that he's imagining that the plan will create enormous additional economic growth and that will lead to increased tax revenue over the next ten years or so. If that's what he's thinking, his numbers are probably wildly unrealistic. But we can't really know since he won't share them.

On an unrelated note, I was thinking about more about Kokojie's "Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate." That sounds almost treasonous to me. Is winning the election really more important to him than balancing the budget? If Obama will commit to the key elements of Romney's super-awesome tax plan, that means the country probably gets it no matter which candidate wins. Putting winning the election ahead of the country's best interests would totally disqualify him, IMO. I hope that's not what he's thinking.

The best plans means nothing if it's implemented by an imbecile. Obama simply don't have the necessary experience and business sense to implement Romney's plan, this is why in the business world, as a fresh college grad you don't usually get good jobs, because you lack experience. Obama can steal Romney's idea to win the election, but he can't actually implement them correctly due to his inexperience and incompetence.

[kokojie]

Bluntly, it seems *impossible* -- they're just aren't the kinds of loopholes that would create enough revenue, other than loopholes that would hit the middle class and small businesses heavily.

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

When Romney got elected to MA governor in 2002, MA was also facing a huge budget deficit, few would even lend money to MA anymore, the state was nearly insolvent. 4 years later, MA had a balanced budget almost every single year under Romney, the financial situation certainly turned around.

Sure it's not enough to just close loopholes, and that's not what Romney is saying, this is just one method to help achieve his goal. In MA, closing the loopholes created $1.5B new revenue, it was not enough to erase the deficit, but these little things add up, and they do help.

[notme]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

[kokojie]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

[C10H15N]

I'm going with the honest man.  The liar pisses me off. 

[kokojie]

I'm going with the honest man.  The liar pisses me off.  

Both candidate has to lie about certain things in the campaign, that's just the way it is. Otherwise you simply won't get elected. The most honest president in the past 100 years was Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't really that great as President.

[myrkul]

I'm going with the honest man.  The liar pisses me off. 

Nobody for president 2012?

Now that's a vote I can get behind.

[C10H15N]

I, for one, am tired of voting for the lesser of two weevils.   

[notme]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars.  Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

[myrkul]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars.  Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

Well, closing Gitmo (like he said he would), bringing the troops home (like he said he would), and legalizing marijuana (Like he said we should) would have helped. If he'd done anything but fly around and make more campaign speeches, he would have done better.

[jojo69]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

The public sector is such a large part of the economy now that cuts of a magnitude that would actually address the debt in a meaningful way would cripple growth...thus reducing tax input.  We are over the event horizon.  The gravitational pull of this black hole of debt can not be escaped.  Gold, food, BTC, 12Ga buckshot, brace for impact.

[kokojie]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars.  Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars.


Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress.

[notme]

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt.  Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars.  Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars.


Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress.

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.  Obama called BS and started counting it.  That's why it looks so much worse after he took office.  http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx

[BoardGameCoin]

Bush didn't fuck up the economy

I voted for him... twice. And I believe this statement to be totally wrong. He wasn't the only one responsible, but his 'increase government while decreasing taxes' strategy is a huge part of why we had $1 trillion deficits once the housing bubble crashed.

[BoardGameCoin]

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

[notme]

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.