Bill Clinton Explains Romney`s $5 Trillion Tax Cut

Submitted by: whodat6484 4 years ago in

Looks like Mitt Romney needs a binder full of math too.
There are 74 comments:
Male 7,378
Let`s attempt to understand republican angst. Republicans who were unable to thwart a terrorist attack on American soil they were pre-warned about, that killed 3,000 people, 11 years ago are now upset because Obama didn`t save 4 people in a consulate 1/2 way around the world? Yeah that`s republican logic. Before stealing talking points from Fox you should think about them first. I wish you had a brain you could call your own.
0
Reply
Male 787
Ollie he doesn`t care about what Paul and Obama agree on. Someone who supports Paul knows that he`ll do things DIFFERENT than Obama/Romney.

Not all black and white.
Not all things fit into your narrow purview.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: The polls show differently. Within the last week Obama`s job approval has dropped 7 points and is below 49%. The bungling of the Benghazi attack and the e-mails showing he knew within hours it was terrorists and not protestors, makes him look very bad.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]If Ron Paul was the republican nominee I would vote republican next month...I just don`t understand how you can feel those leanings lie more closely with Romney.[/quote]
Romney and Paul agree on about half the important issues, e.g., reducing spending, reducing tax rates, reducing regulations, expanding federalism, appointing strict constructionist judges, and overturning Roe v Wade. Can you name one single SIGNIFICANT issue on which Paul and Obama agree?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]...he said he wanted to give the wealthy a $4.8 trillion tax cut.[/quote]
Wrong, but thank for playing the Fail Game once again.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@chalket Shouldn`t you at least know the meaning of words before you use them. You obviously have no idea what a neocon actually is. You just use it as a generic insult for people you disagree with, but believe it or not, it has a specific definition which is not in any way, shape, or form consistent with your usage of it.

You obviously have Internet service. Why don`t you just Google "neoconservatism" and learn what it actually means before you put your glaring ignorance on display again?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]madest: Your usual delusional has jumped the shark if you really believe Romney is giving out a $5 trillion tax cut (or anything even close to that).[/quote] ------------
You have a reading comprehension problem but be that as it may, Romney will never be in a position to give anyone a tax break because he`ll never be president.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Simply put I find it odd you seem to be making a case for Obama. *I* am simply making a case AGAINST him.

NOT a case FOR Romney OR Republicans.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]
I just don`t understand how you can feel those leanings lie m,ore closely with Romney.[/quote]

Likewise I can the same thing between you and Obama.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
Cajun247

It just seems like you are consistently on the side of Crakr, 5Cats, and OldOllie when we have these little debates, which surprises me because you seem to have rational ideals and common sense.

If Ron Paul was the republican nominee I would vote republican next month. If Gary Johnson had a legitimate shot I would consider him. I would have voted for Perot in 92.

So I believe you and I have similar leanings. I just don`t understand how you can feel those leanings lie m,ore closely with Romney.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
HG: I don`t think Romney would make a good president either. I should point out you`re talking to a former Obama supporter here. I`m simply questioning the notion that somehow higher taxes and Democrats are good for the economy.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
Cajun247

Let me ask you a question. If Romney is elected and he raises government spending and raising the debt despite all his promises, just like all other Republicans before him, in 4 years will you still be defending republicans as representing your libertarian ideals?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] No TPC`s claim relies on the way things are currently.[/quote]

People doing what they can to avoid paying taxes is NOT an assumption. That`s especially true considering that growth has stagnated, and labor participation is down.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

"HG: There you go again, blaming Bush. You just can`t help yourself from blaming Bush for everything can you?"

Look at any chart. Obama took over midway through absolute economic free fall. It took 4 years to stabilize things and start seeing tangible signs of improvement.

If there is a captain of a ship and he crashes into an iceberg, then half way through the ship`s sinking he jumps overboard and the first mate takes over, do you blame the first mate if the ship sinks a little bit more?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: There you go again, blaming Bush. You just can`t help yourself from blaming Bush for everything can you?
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

"TPC`s claim relies on certain assumptions, most importantly that cutting tax rates will result in zero additional growth"

No TPC`s claim relies on the way things are currently. That is not an assumption. You and Romney make assumptions that growth goes up. What if it becomes stagnate or goes down? Bush`s tax cuts might have been a good idea if growth went up. However he cut revenue and then the economy tanked which led to the record setting deficits and debt that he handed off to Obama.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: TPC`s claim relies on certain assumptions, most importantly that cutting tax rates will result in zero additional growth. However, if scored dynamically, "economic growth could fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole."

That still leaves a gap, but if Romney`s plan were also to eliminate exemptions on state and local bonds and life insurance policies, that could raise an additional $45 billion. In other words, it is possible that Romney`s plan could actually lower top rates and, by eliminating exemptions and prompting new growth, raise more revenue.

It`s significant not just that the math can work but that the author of the study claiming it did not is now admitting, "Under those assumptions and policies it would be revenue neutral."
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote"> "They claimed that if he wanted to adequately fund that plan by eliminating deductions, the middle class would pay about $86 billion more in annual taxes."[/quote">

TPC`s "nonpartisan" $5 trillion blunder
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak and AuburnJunky

"The Tax Policy Center looked at the cuts Romney proposed. Their main conclusion was a reduction in 2015 tax revenue by $456 billion, or about $5 trillion over ten years."

"They claimed that if he wanted to adequately fund that plan by eliminating deductions, the middle class would pay about $86 billion more in annual taxes."
0
Reply
Male 17,512
You`re are correct AJ, one thing though. Some people seem to believe all of that $5 trillion spending cut is going to be happen in the first year, which is not his plan. He wants to spread the cuts out over 4-5 years.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Madest:

He said he wanted to CUT SPENDING by $5 trillion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: Your usual delusional has jumped the shark if you really believe Romney is giving out a $5 trillion tax cut (or anything even close to that).
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Romney has NEVER said he wanted to cut tax revenues by $5 trillion.[/quote] ------------
You`re right he said he wanted to give the wealthy a $4.8 trillion tax cut. Experts surmised that he would need to raise revenue on the middle class. Must be difficult to be a self proclaimed genius when you deny facts.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Ollie, Crakr, etal... I am truly amazed at the fantasy world you neo-cons have created for yourselves. There is absolutely no resemblance to fact or truth or real life. Sheesh, no wonder you can`t get past your blind partisanship, you just remold the data to fit your fantasy. I give up on you all.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Read up on the recent happenings on Libya.

There was a drone circling during the attack. Obama and Hilary were in the situation room.

They watched the Ambassador die, then went on a "It was not a terrorist attack" tour.

He knew. He knew. They lied.

We only know, what we need to know.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Well we know what Obama`s plans are, Doubling down on failure. You can only blame your predecessor for so long. If this wreckovery was a car, the insurance company would just total it.
0
Reply
Male 546
I`m amazed how Clinton is now so revered? What a difference a few years makes.

I mean since Bill explained, it all us dummies now understand?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Clinton is a lying, low-life sack of $#!+. Romney has NEVER said he wanted to cut tax revenues by $5 trillion. That`s a bigger lie than, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." At least in that case, there`s a point to be made the sodomy does not constitute "sexual relations."

Seriously, who do you think knows more about Romney`s plans, Romney or Clinton?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
peakingo, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would know that ALL spending bills originate in the House. If you knew anything about history, you would know that the Democrats controlled the House during Reagan`s and GHW Bush`s entire terms and the first two years of Clinton. Then, after 40 uninterrupted years of Democrat rule, the people threw them out. That`s when Newt Gingrich balanced the budget, and dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into signing it. Clinton`s been bragging about it like it was his idea ever since.

Actually, though, the budget was balanced by an explosion in capital gains tax revenues from the dotcom stock bubble which burst during Clinton`s last year in office. By the time Bush took office, the NASDAQ had lost half its value.

We were well into a recession when Bush took office, and we also had 9/11, the planning for which started under Clinton, but he never whined about what he "inherited" like that little chicken$#!+ Obama.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
SCFan

"I don`t know how any reasonably intelligent person could support Obama."

Here is how. Facts. Not bulls.hit partisan spin, just facts. Obama was handed the worst recession in almost 100 years. Here is what he has done starting with the single best economic indicator, GDP per capita:

GDP per capita 2009: $45,192
GDP per capita 2010: $46,702
GDP per capita 2011: $48,442
GDP per capita 2012: $50,450 (Projected)
Source: tinyurl.com/y5tfwwd

Projected GDP for 2012: $15.72 T
Source: tinyurl.com/m7z9ag

0
Reply
Male 15,832
peakingo, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would know that ALL spending bills originate in the House. If you knew anything about history, you would know that the Democrats controlled the House during Reagan`s and GHW Bush`s entire terms and the first two years of Clinton. Then, after 40 uninterrupted years of Democrat rule, the people threw them out. That`s when Newt Gingrich balancing the budget, and dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into signing it. Clinton`s been bragging about it like it was his idea ever since.

Actually, though, the budget was balanced by an explosion in capital gains tax revenues from the dotcom stock bubble which burst Clinton`s last year in office.

We were well into a recession when Bush took office, and we also had 9/11, the planning for which started under Clinton, but he never whined about what he "inherited" like that little chicken$#!+ Obama.



0
Reply
Male 8,123
UNEMPLOYMENT
Worst point 2009: 10%
Today: 7.8%
Source: tinyurl.com/9g6gek4

GDP
Worst point 2009: $13.85 Trillion
Today: $15.83 Trillion
Source: tinyurl.com/8nmusfn

NEW HOME BUILDS
Worst point 2009: 478,000
Today: 750,000
Source: tinyurl.com/d32lag8

HOME PURCHASES
Worst point 2009: 4.49 Million (seasonally adjusted annual rate)
Today: 4.82 Million (seasonally adjusted annual rate)
Source: tinyurl.com/8eqa2ts
0
Reply
Male 8,123
NASDAQ
Worst point 2009: 1293
Today: 3136
Source: tinyurl.com/8a96afo (change to 5yr)

DOW
Worst point 2009: 6,626
Today: 13,610
Source: tinyurl.com/455lbcj (change to 5yr)

CHANGE IN JOBS
Worst point 2009: -818,000
Today: +114,000
Source: tinyurl.com/3non4n6

AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS
Worst point 2009: $22.03
Today: $23.58
Source: tinyurl.com/9tu5d8r

EMPLOYED PEOPLE:
Worst point 2009: 129,319,000
Today: 133,500,000
Source: tinyurl.com/6tsspgz

MEDIAN HOME LIST PRICE
Worst point 2009: $205,100
Today: $256,000
Source: tinyurl.com/cddzufx
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

"Obama must`ve bribed him with some binders full of women, beforehand."

Nicely done. That was legitimately funny.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Obama must`ve bribed him with some binders full of women, beforehand.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Anything to take the focus off the real problem. Our criminal president. Responsible for murder.[/quote]
Missed the Memo on that one. Expound, please?
0
Reply
Male 2,085
I`ll say one thing about Clinton; he is loyal to his party because I don`t know how any reasonably intelligent person could support Obama.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Anything to take the focus off the real problem. Our criminal president. Responsible for murder.
0
Reply
Male 3,461
@Peakingo, by that logic, you could say that the surplus was caused by the Senate and House, which have a greater influence over fiscal/spending policies than the president.

Who had control of the entire Legislative branch during the Clinton surplus?... Republicans...

Now, I`m not saying that whenever Rupublicans holds Congress the deficit goes down or when Democrats hold Congress the deficit goes up, rather I am saying just because there may appear to be a correlation doesn`t mean there is a causation.

See my last post to find out the real causation of the Clinton surplus.

*Edited because I flipped two words*
0
Reply
Male 761
I love how people say that GOP put in place the groundwork for the surplus during Clintons admin. Here`s something I don`t get about it. Republicans were in office for 12 years, Reagan for 8 and then his VP Bush Sr. for 4 years following the same the structure created by Reagan.

Then Clinton came to power, changed the tax plan of the nation and cut spending on meaningless military barracks and other misc expenditures and boom we have a surplus. Are you seriously telling me that he had nothing to do with that massive change?

Then after 8 years, Bush`s little kid becomes President (R) and in a few months all the surplus is gone.


IDK, I`m no Warren Buffet but I`m going to have to say it had nothing to do with Republican Presidents and instead a great Democratic President who actually wanted and did make lives easier for the middle class.
0
Reply
Male 884
You saw where he actually put his tongue in his cheek, right?
0
Reply
Male 3,909
CJ - As per HG, the sole mission of the GOP for the last 4 years has been to do anything at all possible to make sure the Obama administration fails, even if it means potentially making things worse causing American people to suffer. They`re capable of doing anything. You posting a link to an "actual news report" means absolutely nothing because these "actual news organizations" report what they`re being told to report by whoever`s signing their checks. You just happen to be one of the sheep who follow along blindly, taking their word for it.

"Oh look, (insert news organization here) said it on the magic box that has those neat-o moving pictures, must be true!"
0
Reply
Male 3,461
"People mock Clinton, but his administration gave you guys one of the biggest surplus`s youve ever had in your countries existence."

Though your second part is correct, our only surplus ever was under Clinton`s watch, but why?

Answer: The GDP grew almost exponentially causing the surplus. The GDP only grew like so because of a brand new service called the Internet.
Internet technologies surged creating new jobs, new technologies, new everything.
So unless you actually believe Gore invented the internet, your assessment isn`t correct.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

"That`s the sort of thing politicians say when their voices aren`t heard and they get ran over by partisans that have no intention of working across the aisle."

Do you even remember all the concessions Obama gave republicans on Obamacare? The final bill was a shell of itself. The democrats wanted a much more expansive plan including a public option.

You`re going to be on the wrong side of this in history`s view. 30 years from now Americans will look back at Obamacare or what it turns into the same way they look at social security now.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: That`s the sort of thing politicians say when their voices aren`t heard and they get ran over by partisans that have no intention of working across the aisle.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

"That`s how bi-partisanship works, you work with both sides to come up with a solution, not try to cram legislation down representatives throats on orders from the president."

You really think Obama had the ability to work with congress in a bi-partisan way?

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Well, gee. How do you do that? By making sure you do everything you can to obstruct him from trying to fix things so the economy doesn`t improve fast enough and he loses the election because of it.

Senator Jim DeMint: "If we are able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

That is what DeMint said about Obamacare. I`m sure he was totally open minded to work through it in a bi partisan way.



0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: Do you really want to open the can-of-worms I have ready showing all of Obama`s dishonesty? Obama is the least transparent president in history.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: At least I linked to an actual news report, not a blog linked to socialists.

My link was also on the same topic as the submission, not something that has nothing to do the presidential candidates plans.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
It does relate because it all has to do with dishonesty, which is apparently the only thing Romney hasn`t flip-flopped on. He`s been pretty good at consistently lying.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Nope, not distracting sh*t. And yes, your CNN link is really nothing but hot air, just like you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: Those cuts will be hammered out in the Ways and Means Committee, as they should be. Then sent on for a vote in the House of Representatives.

That`s how bi-partisanship works, you work with both sides to come up with a solution, not try to cram legislation down representatives throats on orders from the president. (like Obamacare was)
0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: Btw, what do election machine tallies have to do with this post? Or where you posting that link just to distract from mine?
0
Reply
Male 8,123
CrakrJak

How is Romney going to erase the deficit, chip away at the debt, spend $2 billion more on defense and reducing revenue?

What is he cutting besides Obamacare, PBS, and Planned Parenthood? That still leaves him several trillion short. So where is it coming from? Do you have any idea or are you just taking his word for it?

0
Reply
Male 17,512
CreamK & chalket: She wasn`t vague at all, It`s Obama`s plan that`s not only vague and it`s old.

She highlighted the relevant parts from Obama`s pamphlet and explained in detail why it doesn`t add up.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
thosbeama74

"did you forget the 3400 people that died during 9-11 and the bombing of the USS Cole. Whether or not you agree you moron it was all warranted."

Good job. Thanks for reminding people how Iraq attacked us on 9-11 and attacked the USS Cole.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: It doesn`t take long to notice that you #1 Linked to a blog, #2 Linked to a blog with links to itself, as proof, and the world socialist website. #3 Said website uses an algorithm that isn`t peer reviewed in anyway.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@markust123 - Same here, a friend posted it on Facebook a few hours ago so I`ve been going through it with a fine tooth comb. I downloaded the PDF with all the data from the 2012 Republican Primary as well. I`m not sure about the AZ problem though, I haven`t seen anything new about that yet.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"That CNN piece was a load of poo, CJ.. Vague, opinionated crap of "news"."

My thoughts exactly. But what can you expect from corporate shill Erin Burnett? Let`s see now... daughter of a corporate attorney, advisor to Donald Trump, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, connected to Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and roundly panned by media watchdog groups for being "purposely inaccurate" in her reporting. Yep, that`s about the type of hatchet-job journalism Crakr lives for!
0
Reply
Male 4,393
I almost threw up after reading your article whodat6484. I sure hope those guys are wrong. It is extremely suspicious that people have not been allowed access to count the disputed Arizona ballots. Is there a link to show that is true?
0
Reply
Male 1,421
That CNN piece was a load of poo, CJ.. Vague, opinionated crap of "news".
0
Reply
Male 3,909
I just posted that 6 minutes before your reply, you didn`t even attempt to read it.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@CJ - Look at the numbers... oh, that`s right... you guys don`t care about the numbers! You just expect us to take your word for it.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
whodat: That doesn`t prove anything, it`s one person`s opinion, not fact.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections, HERE.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
CNN Takes a look at Obama`s 20 page plan, Here.
0
Reply
Male 17
Typical garbage remarks from the left and the right is no better...tedqp whatever the hell that is.."Bloodthirst" OMG you`re a piece of poo, did you forget the 3400 people that died during 9-11 and the bombing of the USS Cole. Whether or not you agree you moron it was all warranted. The Surplus is what caused the recession,he never made payments..on top of that Clinton didn`t have anything to deal with during his term in office except Somalia and f--ked that up. He put more soldiers in unwinnable situations. He`s a bum!!
0
Reply
Male 313
Romney and Ryan are the creepist duo to come along in all of the presidential races I have witnessed. If they get in we can expect the country to go down the tubes. I am encouraged to see the progress that we have been making to restore the country and I continue to support Mr. Obama. I think he has earned a moment to gloat (in a few years) when he looks over his work. I say well done given what he had to start with after the Bush years.
0
Reply
Male 4,393
Oh my god I was so trolling with that last comment. Sorry about that.
0
Reply
Male 4,393
The math may not add up but the skin color does.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
I challenge our local neo-cons (you know who you are) to link us to anything, anywhere with any SPECIFICS from Romney or Ryan (who I`ve come to call `Ratman and Rob`em`). You`ll find nothing but generic complaints, 5-point plans and promises of "We`ll fix that!" but never any actual, specific plans to accomplish a bit of it.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
People mock Clinton, but his administration gave you guys one of the biggest surplus`s youve ever had in your countries existence.

Then you got an unelected president who decided to use that money to fund his bloodthirst.
0
Reply
Male 5,078
Yep is exactly the real and deepest fault of Romney, he promise delicious things but don`t talk about how and what are the consequences.
0
Reply
Male 8,123
Only an idiot would take a politician at his word.

Romney wants to cut revenue WHILE cutting the deficit and increasing defense spending. HOW? Say how. You want to take over and do a better job SAY HOW.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Link: Bill Clinton Explains Romney`s $5 Trillion Tax Cut [Rate Link] - Looks like Mitt Romney needs a binder full of math too.
0
Reply