No More Hope and Change a quick couple of examples

How will he offset his rate cuts and how will he keep those cuts from adding to the deficit? Any specifics?

archer wrote: How will he offset his rate cuts and how will he keep those cuts from adding to the deficit? Any specifics?

Actually getting the economy going? Now pay attention, you economic illiterates.
Part of the money supply is related to the velocity of money. Right now in Obama's stagnant economy, dollars are not moving very fast, so one dollar might only change hands four times per year. Suppose Romney convinces consumers and businesses that things are about to get good and you want to buy and spend now, that same dollar may move twice as fast, getting taxed twice as often, people are getting twice as many dollars in income. Good example, a hair stylist, if people actually believe they are going to be hired, they are more likely to visit every 2 weeks instead of 8 weeks. And they are likely to invest in their appearance and buy dye jobs. The haircut people and shop owner have more money to spend, their dye suppliers are getting paid more often, see how the cycle works?

Instead we have Obama refusing to lead, give Americans any hope, instead he is just whining about how band Bush made it, how Wall Street is screwing them, etc.

No wonder people are holding onto those dollars.

To sum up, Romney can cut the tax rate, but if he increases the velocity of the money, we can achieve even higher tax receipts.

Those employees and store owners will be earning more income and paying more taxes. Their suppliers will be paying higher taxes and hiring more people to fill orders. The store owner will be increasing the hours for his staff and possibly hiring more.

Specifics are something that must be worked out with Congress - they are the ones who generate tax and appropriation legislation after all. Working with the loyal opposition to achieve results is something that Romney has proven to be successful at and something that Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the beginnings of even a clue about. It is difficult to provide specifics when one realizes that the endeavor will be akin to herding cats. It is the larger principle which guides the endeavor that is important. Yes, the devil is in the details, but the details are something that must be worked out with Congress.

Clinton was handed a similar defeat in his first midterm, but he was an adroit enough statesman and politician to achieve a working relationship with the Congress that the people elected to represent them. Obama had no interest in working with the Congress the people elected to represent them in 2010. His strategy was to ignore the representatives of the people and hope that something would change if he was given a second chance in 2012. Obama will not have a House with a Democratic majority, he might not even have Reid leading the Senate to run interference for him beginning in 2013. He has spent the last few years telling voters to "punish their enemies" rather than seeking common ground with the elected representatives of the people. Obama is incapable of leading anything other than a Congress that rubber stamps his agenda. If the last 4 years have shown us anything, it has shown us that.

You know Fred, you could have delivered that lecture without the condescension. Questioning Romney's economic plan does not make a person economically illiterate. This sounds an awful lot like the Romney version of hope and change. He will lower all the tax rates and hope that the economy improves enough and money comes pouring into the government. Any lag in that happening,IF that happens, and the deficit soars.

His plan is like you going to the bank for a loan you don't have enough income to make the payments, but you claim your circumstances are sure to improve and you will will be able to pay it back. Just trust you.

Democracy4Sale wrote: That number is from the CBO, based on giving 20% tax cuts to everyone, with no revenues to offset it.

Please try to pay attention.

You should follow your own advice and pay attention. Along with the 20% rate cut across the board comes a simplification of the tax code with fewer deductions and credits - in other words offsets which make the rate cut revenue neutral. Nowhere will you find Romney advocating for the rate cuts with no offsets to make it revenue neutral - which is the only set of conditions under which the premise you outline can be sustained. You can't begin to lay any claim to legitimacy of the argument when you are only looking at one half of the proposal that has been put forward.

archer wrote: You know Fred, you could have delivered that lecture without the condescension. Questioning Romney's economic plan does not make a person economically illiterate. This sounds an awful lot like the Romney version of hope and change. He will lower all the tax rates and hope that the economy improves enough and money comes pouring into the government. Any lag in that happening,IF that happens, and the deficit soars.

His plan is like you going to the bank for a loan you don't have enough income to make the payments, but you claim your circumstances are sure to improve and you will will be able to pay it back. Just trust you.

But the problem with the analysis saying it won't work assuming the current economic conditions. Guess what, it isn't working with Obama considering the current economic conditons and there is no sign at all that Obama will do things things differently in his second term.

He isn't even promising hope and change anymore because he knows it will no longer work. Time for new blood and results.