Wallace Dresses Down Gillespie Over Romney's 20% Tax Cut

I'm impressed by Chris Wallace in this interview. He actually resembles a real journalist.
shuacsays...

The famous Mario Cuomo quote, "Campaign in poetry, govern in prose" will have to be updated to accurately reflect 21st century politics...

"You campaign in fiction, govern in true crime."
-Shuac, Videosift.com

swedishfriendsays...

Plus... Lowering taxes has NEVER led to growth. Historically the higher the taxes especially on the rich and corporations the better the economy has done. It makes sense that money in the hands of the many will be better spent on average than money in the hands of the few.

TheFreaksays...

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?

Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

bmacs27says...

The argument is exactly that. Rich folk tend to invest. You put money in their pocket, and they'll typically invest it in equity or bonds. Both of these things bring down the cost of corporate borrowing either directly (through bond buying) or indirectly (through supporting the share price, and thus the equity available to borrow against). The hypothesis is that this will lead to more hiring, job retention, or capital investment.

My main issue with it is that in a global economy it doesn't provide any guarantees those jobs happen here. Further, if you don't support demand, there is no real incentive to grow the firm. That's why I think considering the supply side is backwards.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

bareboards2says...

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.

It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

KnivesOutsays...

When I say "redistribution" I mean he's going to shift the burden onto the middle class, and the wealthy will ultimately pay less. That's the irony of all that GOP's redistribution rhetoric. The real class warfare is the 1% trying to get everyone else to cover a higher proportion of the bill.>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.
It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

quantumushroomsays...

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

rabidnesssays...

I've paid some attention to this.

The Republican Maths on Taxes 2012?
-20% Tax Rate
+4% limit tax deductions to $17000/yr cap (charitable contributions, mortgage interest tax breaks)
+?% growth from -20% Tax Rate (a.k.a. magic)
+$ ???
+$ kill funding to states
+$ kill environmental protection agency
+$ kill dept of education
+$ kill dept of uhm... er...
= budget "neutral"?
+ we got shit done in congress(unlike that obama sneer, sneeeeer)
+ purer capitalism?

Unfortunately, even if you LIKE all of these things... Mitt Romney's "positions" are hardly worth believing.

TheFreaksays...

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.


bamdrewsays...

A relative of mine owns a small business, and recognizes that an increase in purchasing power in the bottom 90% of Americans would drive more purchasing in the US, and more buying would drive more investment by him in terms of labor and non-liquid assets in his business. However a bit of cognitive dissonance leads him to "feel" that increasing taxes on large corporations and the very wealthy to lock in lower taxes on the middle class is not 'leveling the playing field', and "feels wrong".

Basically he optimistically feels that he may one day be in the top 1% of earners, and this weird selfishness that he may one day be incredibly wealthy and thus affected by a higher tax burden is leading him to vote against his own goddamn interest. This, and he "feels" that once taxes have been raised on the wealthy, there will be blood in the water and it will eventually slide down to those making $~100k. Its hard to argue with feelings about the future.


>> ^TheFreak:

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.
It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.

Fletchsays...

"I would say that it is a right-leaning think tank."

"It DOES make it non-partisan. It is not a partisan organization."


I wonder what a left-leaning think tank would say about their tax plan, and whether Ed would also defend them as non-partisan.

snoozedoctorsays...

There's no doubt increased broad based spending by the middle class would help the economy. The notion that the super wealthy are "hoarders" is erroneous. They are profligate spenders, and by doing so, promote the economy. The owner of a very successful software company built a $12,000,000 home recently, that I toured. It was the epitome of excess. However, by his excess he put contractors, roofers, plumbers, masons, landscapers, etc to work, not to mention the people his own company employs. Basically, he pumped that $12,000,000 right back into the economy. As historians Will and Ariel Durant (The History of Civilization, a 10 volume work I dare anyone to get TOTALLY through, wow), noted, "Perhaps it is one secret of their power (bankers) that having studied the fluctuations of prices, they know that history is inflationary, and that money is the last thing a wise man will hoard." In the 18th century, Adam Smith coined the unintentional benefits of profligate spending by the wealthy, for his own wants and desires, the "invisible hand" that promoted the welfare of society at large. It's human nature that even when equipped with the essentials for living, they will envy the privilege of the few super wealthy among them and some wealth will be redistributed to the poor, in order to keep the peace.

snoozedoctorsays...

It would be nice if politicians had the real guts to tell you exactly what they plan to do. It's like hiring a landscaper for your new house and you asking, "what's the plan?" "Well, you know, make it pretty." "How are you going to do that?" "Well, you know, put some things here and there." Anyone who has worked with a landscaper would know the folly of that trust.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More