Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: mortgage interest relief*

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 04 Oct 12 10:03 PM | 128 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 10554 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 10553 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

all agreed, my point is force the mathematical requirement that the formula provides.

He says close loopholes and deductions, but most have no clue what component of current deficits or future Romney tax "cuts" can be measurably offset.

The middle class, generally, owns calculators, but the information is not provided.

I, obviously being a dual use person, only own a smoking rack, but having been given a long time ago beads and shells from my children at times they thought it would cheer me up after e.g the loss of my parents ... so I have an abacus.

The seashell stone-bead wood-chip smoking rack abacus is all that Romney will never be. It is honest, it is full of heart and soul, and it requires simple data to give simple results. And in times of requirement or desire, for distraction or leisure, it abandons tasks of math and smokes fish.

It could be argued that if I made enough that I might afford a marginal rate and so on for a nuclear powered titanium abacus.

No. Not so.

Obama was on the cusp of this message. Basic security, opportunity, and community. I worry he lost that message.

Axelrod is THE god of staying on message, we'll see how he performs now, he does not have a rich resume of running from behind the narrative. Obviously, if you are good at his job, you never run from behind the narrative, that is the whole damn point. I did catch some Axelrod in the post game show, and I said to my wife on face recognition that "a nuke cannot knock this guy off message" and then I turned up the volume. My wife agreed. The man, she said, can really stay on message.

Obama now needs to respond to another that has been given the opportunity to acquire message, and he needs to maul him. A component of Am Boa has loosened, Am Boa operates best from a position of complete narrative control.

The narrative is now briefly loose.

I am very curious to see just how good these guys are. I tis not as if they have not had narrative moments. Many would have been felled by L Farakahn. Many.

So, lets see. I think we can be confident of two things:

1. Mitt is more formidably than given credit for
2. Mitt has acquired a team of neocon wackos with no skills at all.

If he turns to his team he is toast.



- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
mortgage interest relief*
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Thu, 04 Oct 12 8:04 PM 		Msg. 10553 of 54959

yes. i understand that romney claims these things from the long grass.

but he has also claimed that growth rates will increase by magic simply because he is president, and that the increased growth rates help supply his deficiency: "“My own view is, if we win on November 6, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back, and we’ll see — without actually doing anything — we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.” this is also romney from his 47% reel.

just like the ryan plan, everything is based around the notion that if you lower taxes on the "job creators" they will grow the economy at a much faster rate. unfortunately there is no economic basis for this belief.

so back to assuming that eliminating deductions can do the whole job: martin feldstein made the argument that romney's plan is doable if taxes are raised on people making more than $100k per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/?print=1

"The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class."

unfortunately feldstein's model is not possible while also complying with other things romney has said. eg

" MITT ROMNEY: No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."


all the same, you are right to point to mortgage deductions as the only plausible source of savings. and i agree that it actually makes sense to eliminate them as essentially a subsidy for richer homeowners over other homeowners and a subsidy of homeowners in general over renters.

but it is also obvious it is a political non-starter.

hence, for several reasons, the tax policy center concluded that romney's plan is "not mathematically possible".


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next