Apologies to all those who don't feel this is threadworthy.



EXCLUSIVE: Romney's Plan Will Balloon The Deficit And Radically Increase The National Debt

OK, so if he's a big spending liberal then why won't you vote for him?

Heh, give Obama both houses of congress and watch them light that graph up like a pinball machine.

To understand the perspective this "analysis" comes from one need only read this section.

Quote:For example, we did not accept Romney's premise that he will eliminate enough loopholes to make his tax cuts revenue neutral. Romney has not identified one single tax loophole he is willing to cut, and he has suggested he will protect some popular ones. So we think it is highly unlikely that Romney will eliminate enough tax loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral.

So, they don't believe him, so they aren't going to include a critical piece of his plan in their analysis that would have a significant impact on said analysis.

It's probably worth pointing out that Romney will not get all of his plan passed because the senate will be narrowly run by one party or the other. If Dems run it he'll get next to nothing. If Republicans run it the Dems will block big pieces of it.

They say on multiple occassions they don't agree with his assumpitions by making assumptions of their own. So they are making assumptions many would likely not agree with as well. So they are making a definitive statement based on far from definitive assumptions.

Translation, this piece is fairly worthless in most every respect.

(09-17-2012 04:32 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  To understand the perspective this "analysis" comes from one need only read this section.

Quote:For example, we did not accept Romney's premise that he will eliminate enough loopholes to make his tax cuts revenue neutral. Romney has not identified one single tax loophole he is willing to cut, and he has suggested he will protect some popular ones. So we think it is highly unlikely that Romney will eliminate enough tax loopholes to make his plan revenue neutral.

So, they don't believe him...

No, I read that as, "we did the math with the information we had."

If Romney wants the analysis of his plan to be more specific, he needs to identify which tax deductions he plans on eliminating. If he can't/won't, then how can anyone accurately assess his plan?

(09-17-2012 04:39 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  No, I read that as, "we did the math with the information we had."

If Romney wants the analysis of his plan to be more specific, he needs to identify which tax deductions he plans on eliminating. If he can't/won't, then how can anyone accurately assess his plan?

No, the information they had said Romney would pay for it through the elimination of tax loopholes. That was the information they had. They want more specific information and in the absence of it they just assume he won't do it. Ergo, they don't believe him.

I don't think Romney wants a more specific analysis of his plan cause he doesn't know everything he'll go for, or have an idea of what he can get. For the some reason Obama has laid out zero specifics for his second term.

Candidates speak in broad ideas and principals. Submitting extensive specifics only serves to allow your opponent to distort them and attack you.

(09-17-2012 04:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  OK, so if he's a big spending liberal then why won't you vote for him?

Knowing just how liberal he is, why don't you hate him with a passion that matches your hatred of Obama?

(09-17-2012 04:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  OK, so if he's a big spending liberal then why won't you vote for him?

Not enough experience being president and weak on foreign policy.

1) While the CBO is non-partisan, its rule book is like a distortion field from reality (can't look beyond 10 years, impossibly optimistic economic outlook, etc).
2) The real fiscal hawks on this board have been saying all along that Romney is a big spending liberal. He has a history of it. His rhetoric has been one of deliberate avoidance.
3) This does not change the fact that Obama is just as bad on all the same accounts for all the same reasons.

(09-17-2012 04:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 04:39 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  No, I read that as, "we did the math with the information we had."

If Romney wants the analysis of his plan to be more specific, he needs to identify which tax deductions he plans on eliminating. If he can't/won't, then how can anyone accurately assess his plan?

No, the information they had said Romney would pay for it through the elimination of tax loopholes. That was the information they had. They want more specific information and in the absence of it they just assume he won't do it. Ergo, they don't believe him.

I don't think Romney wants a more specific analysis of his plan cause he doesn't know everything he'll go for, or have an idea of what he can get. For the some reason Obama has laid out zero specifics for his second term.

Candidates speak in broad ideas and principals. Submitting extensive specifics only serves to allow your opponent to distort them and attack you.

Glad to know a candidate can just tell you they'll do something and you'll take them at their word without asking how.

Unless there's a workable, detailed plan, I don't believe them.

Kinda like that whole health care thing we had to pass to read?

(09-17-2012 06:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Glad to know a candidate can just tell you they'll do something and you'll take them at their word without asking how.

Unless there's a workable, detailed plan, I don't believe them.

Obama never presented a workable detailed plan when running. I imagine you voted for him anyway and never doubted him.

(09-17-2012 06:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 06:45 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Glad to know a candidate can just tell you they'll do something and you'll take them at their word without asking how.

Unless there's a workable, detailed plan, I don't believe them.

Obama never presented a workable detailed plan when running. I imagine you voted for him anyway and never doubted him.

So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

(09-17-2012 07:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

Given the nature of politics today it has to be.

Quote:And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

Exact reason I'm voting for Romney.

(09-17-2012 07:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

Given the nature of politics today it has to be.

Quote:And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

Exact reason I'm voting for Romney.

Just as long as you're willing to be honest and consistent.

(09-17-2012 07:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

Given the nature of politics today it has to be.

Quote:And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

Exact reason I'm voting for Romney.

Just as long as you're willing to be honest and consistent.

I've been pretty clear that was my reason for voting for Romney once he got the nomination.

But I think the underlying point is your issue with lack of specifics clearly didn't keep you from voting for Obama. So why do you take issue with it with Romney?

(09-17-2012 07:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

Given the nature of politics today it has to be.

Quote:And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

Exact reason I'm voting for Romney.

Just as long as you're willing to be honest and consistent.

I've been pretty clear that was my reason for voting for Romney once he got the nomination.

But I think the underlying point is your issue with lack of specifics clearly didn't keep you from voting for Obama. So why do you take issue with it with Romney?

In 2008, Obama went around saying, "hey, I'm not a Republican!" and because of the train wreck that is the modern GOP, that's all it took to get me to vote for him over McPalin.

Romney is running around saying he has a plan to solve our budget and economic problems. Great, how does it work? Oh, he won't say? Then sorry, he doesn't get credit. Or at the very least, I don't expect analysis to just give him assumptions he can't back up with specifics.

So, what's your rationale for voting for Obama in '12?

Surely the last four years haven't been lost on you.

(09-17-2012 10:10 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:13 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 07:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So you're saying thats a reasonable thing to do?

Given the nature of politics today it has to be.

Quote:And I voted for Obama because of who he was running against.

Exact reason I'm voting for Romney.

Just as long as you're willing to be honest and consistent.

I've been pretty clear that was my reason for voting for Romney once he got the nomination.

But I think the underlying point is your issue with lack of specifics clearly didn't keep you from voting for Obama. So why do you take issue with it with Romney?

In 2008, Obama went around saying, "hey, I'm not a Republican!" and because of the train wreck that is the modern GOP, that's all it took to get me to vote for him over McPalin.

Romney is running around saying he has a plan to solve our budget and economic problems. Great, how does it work? Oh, he won't say? Then sorry, he doesn't get credit. Or at the very least, I don't expect analysis to just give him assumptions he can't back up with specifics.

He can't tell how his plan works because it doesn't work.

(09-17-2012 11:14 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, what's your rationale for voting for Obama in '12?

Surely the last four years haven't been lost on you.

That's the real question. tom is such a stickler for details...unless he doesn't like them. AL pretends he's a thinking moderate, until he's challenged and admits thinking is too hard.