Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: If only the little guy would STFU (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone else find it odd that Mitt Romney's Tax Cut (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    714day, 2020adam, Calamity Jean

    ...isn't a tax cut because it's "paid for" according to Romney?

    I wonder if that means increasing the tax rate doesn't count as a tax hike if you spend all the extra money it would bring in.

    We lose if we choose to forget; the lives of men, and money spent.

    by DeanDemocrat on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 10:43:16 PM PDT

    •  I find alot of Mittens' B.S. odd as well the (0+ / 0-)

      fact that a quiz on Bill Moyers' site 'testing' one's knowledge of the bloviation Mitt put forward in the debate seems to say that it isn't quite false for Willard to suggest this. It asks if Obama was telling the truth when he said Mitt would offer 5 trillion in tax cuts. Answer "It's complicated" (NOT false) because Mitt cited "studies" that say Obama was lying - there weren't 6 as Mitt had told us, but 5, for one thing. Three were partisan, including two winger blogs and 1 funded by the Rover's Crossroads - no mention of the other mysterious 2. I'd say all of that spells unequivocal horseshit. I do, however, have 8 or 10 brain cells that are still firing unlike the "fact checkers" who gave us the "correct" answers to the quiz.
      This is my hero Bill Moyers' site! Bill, what have you done?

    •  I don't even understand the concept. (0+ / 0-)

      If cutting taxes is what we desperately need to stimulate the economy, why is it good that he's going to cut rates but close tax expenditures? If revenue (somehow) stays the same, isn't even the hypothetical impact on the economy gonna be zero? Which is to say, if a rich dude creates more jobs when you cut his taxes, won't things stay the same if you're claiming you'll still collect the same dollar amount, just with a different calculation?

      "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

      by 2020adam on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 12:15:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The concept is actually pretty simple. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        2020adam, zett, Icicle68, Calamity Jean

        Anytime a party says, in a campaign, or a government rolls out something, and they use the words "revenue neutral" it means the amount of monies remains the same for government but what changes is this: those who end up paying the freight changes.

        The burden of who pays what gets shifted.

        So, rich dude will pay less, while poor dude will pay more.

        But the same amount of cash will flow.

        In essence, it's a redistribution of wealth, from those lower on the socioeconomic scale to those higher up the rungs.

        •  Well yes, the reality is quite clear. I was... (0+ / 0-)

          just wondering how folks handle the doublethink required to believe both that lower taxes are better and that a revenue neutral tax restructuring is similarly better. If it's not the increase in cash left floating in private hands that makes them happy, what is it?

          In reality, higher taxes on corporate profit and the wealthy are better for job creation. If you spend earnings on labor it won't be taxed as income or profit. It will both grow your bottom line and save you the hassle of paying the hypothetical high tax on profits. If taxes are low, on the other hand, you might as well just take the money and run, ignoring long-term growth and just being happy that turning those earnings into profit is cheap.

          "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

          by 2020adam on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:46:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site