[GeneV]

If the serious nonpartisan studies put the pencil to Gov. Romney's tax plan and find it doesn't add up, post usupported op-eds saying they are wrong, and call them studies.

If the jobs report states that unemployment has improved, it is the result of a conspiracy.

Now, a nonpartisan arm of Congress puts the pencil to tax cuts for the rich, and finds “the reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie,”. and Congressional Republicans force them to withdraw the study. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of...business&_r=2&

And we wonder why we lag in math and science.

[boriscleto]

If math were presented like this there might be more interest

[audiobomber]

“This sounds to me like a complete political hit job and another example of people who don’t like the results and try to use backdoor ways to suppress them,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like this, and frankly, it makes me worried.”

Americans should be worried. Actually everyone should be worried, because the US leadership has great consequence in the world. Lies and suppression are anti-democratic, and the Republican leadership are way too willing to use them.

The idea that giving rich people more is good or needed boggles my mind.

[kenafein]

How hard their dogs fight for them to save a few percent. Of course the big one is the proposed 8 percent capital gains increase.

[mikemike]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

[GeneV]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

The President's tax proposals are out there. What is President Obama's tax plan? - CSMonitor.com TPC Tax Topics | 2012 candidates tax plans

But to the point of THIS thread, has he suppressed information which discredits the plan?

[kenafein]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

Been eating a little too much red herring lately?

[jeffkrol]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

The fact remains that Obama has cut taxes for small businesses eighteen times. The stimulus bill he championed was comprised mostly of tax cuts which went to 95 percent of Americans. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are at their lowest level since the 1950s. The NASDAQ and the Dow Jones Industrial Average have both doubled since Obama has been president. The S&P 500 and the Wilshire 5000 have also increased dramatically since he has been president.

Corporate profits under Obama are at their highest levels in American history. And as we go to press, the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since Obama took office inheriting the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression and the Bush Bailouts of Wall Street and the Auto Industry.

From PentaxForums.com: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/203628-hur...#ixzz2B4qLtBJ2

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/02/conservatives-be-careful-what-wish...h-mitt-romney/

Math, facts, real power of fiat money.. all "voodoo" to them..

[jeffkrol]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

Here is one analysis of a "plan"

Opinion: Exposing Mitt Romney's secret federal budget - Roger C. Altman - POLITICO.com

Exposing Mitt Romney's secret federal budget

You can see why Romney’s budget plan is secret. It would both raise the tax burden on middle income Americans and cause record budget deficits. He is incorrect that revealing this would hurt his campaign. Actually, it would kill it. Are Americans really going to buy this snake oil? Not too likely.

Roger Altman served as U.S. deputy Treasury secretary from 1993-1994, and is founder and chairman of Evercore Partners

.

[Rondec]

Honestly, I have not seen a "real" budget plan from either party. Not from Obama, not from Romney. Fine, Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but to what point? I guess because low and middle class families will vote for him for not increasing taxes on them? Certainly it isn't a plan that will balance the budget, or even get close. Plans like Simpson Bowles are not truly viewed as viable by either party.

The reality is that it is all rhetoric. Neither party truly wants to balance the budget, they just want to please enough the electorate that they can (re) elected. Fine, but there is no moral high ground here and the pot and the kettle are a lot closer than they would like to admit in debates.

[GeneV]

Honestly, I have not seen a "real" budget plan from either party. Not from Obama, not from Romney. Fine, Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but to what point? I guess because low and middle class families will vote for him for not increasing taxes on them? Certainly it isn't a plan that will balance the budget, or even get close. Plans like Simpson Bowles are not truly viewed as viable by either party.

The reality is that it is all rhetoric. Neither party truly wants to balance the budget, they just want to please enough the electorate that they can (re) elected. Fine, but there is no moral high ground here and the pot and the kettle are a lot closer than they would like to admit in debates.

You may not like the budget of either party but I have only seen one block information which was contrary to ideology.

[jeffkrol]

Honestly, I have not seen a "real" budget plan from either party. Not from Obama, not from Romney. Fine, Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but to what point? I guess because low and middle class families will vote for him for not increasing taxes on them? Certainly it isn't a plan that will balance the budget, or even get close. Plans like Simpson Bowles are not truly viewed as viable by either party.

The reality is that it is all rhetoric. Neither party truly wants to balance the budget, they just want to please enough the electorate that they can (re) elected. Fine, but there is no moral high ground here and the pot and the kettle are a lot closer than they would like to admit in debates.

There is absolutely no need to ever balance the budget.. but THAT is a long story) As to the real difference between the 2
One thinks you "stimulate" the economy from the top down (which has continuously failed on paper and in reality)
The other thinks feeding fed cash (or not collecting any) to the middle feed the economy in a more practical manner (shown to be true)............
70% of the economy is "goods and services" ( i.e stuff and healthcare.)
Romney "believes" wages will increase in the lower levels as you "feed" the upper levels. FAIL...today, FAIL in the past.. FAIL in the future.
(Obama wins on this front)

One thinks feeding the military industrial complex is VERY important for jobs and security (yes gov. contracts/money DO stimulate the economy) the other think this money is better spent on "other things" like infrastructure.THIS part of the argument wouldn't even exist if they realized ANY gov. spending/money printing is "stimulative".. It becomes nothing more than a "moral issue"..

[boriscleto]

Why Conservatives and Pundits Are Petrified of Math Wiz Nate Silver | Alternet

In terms of issues dividing the nation as we approach the long-overdue end of this endless campaign season, the raging War on Nate Silver is not as big a deal as, say, the war on poor people and minorities having their votes counted, or the fact that thousands of people on the eastern seaboard have no power or, in far too many places, food. But it is one of the more entertaining diversions of the feverish week before Election Day. In short: Conservatives are outraged at Silver for “predicting” an Obama victory, and nonpartisan (but fiercely ideological) political press elites are all chuckling at his curious notion that fancy math can be used to determine what is most likely to happen in an election.

[les3547]

I don't know which is worse, partisans spinning every fact in their favor, or fence-sitters who look at a fight and think they are being "objective" by blaming both sides equally.

In congress, one side has been far more willing to compromise (and has) than the other. That is an indisputable fact. On the other hand, every sort of compromise is not good; one can't judge congresspersons as intransigent for standing firm against extremist proposals. And that is the actual situation in congress . . . one side willing to compromise in ways that both balance the budget and preserve our social safety net, while the other side will only have it their way, which is to dismantle the social safety net and central government while passing laws that further plutocratic advantages.

[cardinal43]

Lets see Obama's taxing and spending plans then we can talk.

Let's see Romneys taxing and spending plans (details, details, and details) and then we can talk.