October 16th Presidential Debate Opinions

[winex]

Winex - it is right there in your own link  - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=price+elasticity+of+demand    - i like that lmgtfy thing by the way.

"Price elasticity of demand (PED or Ed) is a measure used in economics to show the responsiveness, or elasticity, of the quantity demanded of a good or service to a change in its price. More precisely, it gives the percentage change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent change in price (holding constant all the other determinants of demand, such as income)."

this is what i am saying about you just regurgitating info and not understanding the principles. what you are saying is correct, if you left the $300B in income for the accountants/lawyers, however, since you are removing the $300B in income from the accountants/lawyers you are reducing income/demand by the $300B and therefore your statement is not accurate.

I posted my last replay while you composed yours.  See the 3 sentences pulled from the Wikipedia article that I linked to after my LMGTFY.com link.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

For those other than Winex:

On the budget issue:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has completed an examination of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney?s latest tax cut details ? and once again found problems with the math.
.
.
.
TPC has previously estimated that together these proposals reduce government revenue by $4 trillion on the individual side and another $1 trillion on the corporate side over 10 years. This does not count extending the Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy.

In a new analysis, TPC says that eliminating all itemized deductions would generate only $2 trillion, well short of paying for all the cuts.

A $25,000 cap raises even less revenue, only $1.3 trillion.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...s-math-problems-with-latest-romney-proposals-

On Jobs:

As we have noted before, the 12 million figure is not a bad bet by Romney. Moody?s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.
.
.
.
But the specifics ? 7 million plus 3 million plus 2 million ? mentioned by Romney in the ad are not in the white paper. So where did that come from?

We asked the Romney campaign, and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies ? with completely different timelines.

For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney?s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.

For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney?s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney?s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted ? including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

The 2-million-jobs claim from cracking down on China is also very suspicious.

This figure comes from a 2011 International Trade Commission report, which estimated that there could be a gain of 2.1 million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. intellectual property rights. The estimate is highly conditional and pegged to the job market in 2011, when there was high unemployment. ?It is unclear when China might implement  the improvement in IPR protection envisioned in the analysis, and equally unclear whether the United States will face as much excess labor supply then as it does today,? the report says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html?hpid=z3

Math...it's hard.

 

[qwerty]

Wines - I understand the two principles just fine. The proble
is you look at each one in a vacuum without consideration of other  factors. If demand/incomes are fixed and u introduce a tax then I would agree there is negative impact. The point I was making was that you are taking away 300B in income and therefore it would be a zero sum game since you are messing with a variable of the demand side.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I'm still thinking you're going to still have to pay tax lawyers and accountants to find out how to reduce taxes even under a simplified tax code.

The work will just move from how to use to tax shelters, writeoffs and deductions to how to hide income, revenue and profits.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I'm still thinking you're going to still have to pay tax lawyers and accountants to find out how to reduce taxes even under a simplified tax code.

The work will just move from how to use to tax shelters, writeoffs and deductions to how to hide income, revenue and profits.

Yup...and to move money to places where they are willing to forgo taxes in return for fees. 

 

[winex]

For those other than Winex:

On the budget issue:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has completed an examination of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney?s latest tax cut details ? and once again found problems with the math.
.
.
.
TPC has previously estimated that together these proposals reduce government revenue by $4 trillion on the individual side and another $1 trillion on the corporate side over 10 years. This does not count extending the Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy.

In a new analysis, TPC says that eliminating all itemized deductions would generate only $2 trillion, well short of paying for all the cuts.

A $25,000 cap raises even less revenue, only $1.3 trillion.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...s-math-problems-with-latest-romney-proposals-

On Jobs:

As we have noted before, the 12 million figure is not a bad bet by Romney. Moody?s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.
.
.
.
But the specifics ? 7 million plus 3 million plus 2 million ? mentioned by Romney in the ad are not in the white paper. So where did that come from?

We asked the Romney campaign, and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies ? with completely different timelines.

For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney?s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.

For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney?s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney?s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted ? including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

The 2-million-jobs claim from cracking down on China is also very suspicious.

This figure comes from a 2011 International Trade Commission report, which estimated that there could be a gain of 2.1 million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. intellectual property rights. The estimate is highly conditional and pegged to the job market in 2011, when there was high unemployment. ?It is unclear when China might implement  the improvement in IPR protection envisioned in the analysis, and equally unclear whether the United States will face as much excess labor supply then as it does today,? the report says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html?hpid=z3

Math...it's hard.

Actually math isn't hard.  What is hard is controlling the flow of information in the world we live in.

Romney's budget numbers aren't based on having 23 million people remaining unemployed, and a large number underemployed in part time jobs, or jobs that require less education/skills than they possess.

Romney's numbers are based on something that we don't have today and won't have until we stop enacting anti-business policies - an economic recovery.

Looking athttp://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/r...get-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/,Federal welfare spending in 2008 was 282.7 billion.  In 2011, it was 745.8 billion - a difference of 163.1 billion.

Welfare spending has grown since 2011, and 2008 was a recession year.  But still the same, take that $163 billion annual difference and project it over 10 years and you have 1.63 trillion.

That offsets the 1.3 trillion gap in tax revenues by $330 billion.

Of course getting the economy functioning again has more of an impact than simply reducing welfare roles, it increases tax revenues as people move from being consumers of government resources to contributors to government resources.

Face it, the debate over tax rates is a debate over the role of government in society.  As Gerald Ford once said "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything that you have."

 

[winex]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-romney-win-second-debate_654916.html

These are the first polls that include samples of likely voters from after the debate.  Though it only includes one day of samples after the debate on the 16th, Romney has extended his lead in both polls.

Bottom line -

Gallup
Pre debate Romney 51, Obama 45.  Difference Romney +6
Post debate - Romney 52, Obama 45.  Difference Romney +7

Rassmussen -
Pre debate - Romney 49, Obama 48.  Difference Romney +1
Post debate - Romney 49, Obama 47.  Difference Romney +2
Post debate

 

[Irvinecommuter]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-romney-win-second-debate_654916.html

These are the first polls that include samples of likely voters from after the debate.  Though it only includes one day of samples after the debate on the 16th, Romney has extended his lead in both polls.

Bottom line -

Gallup
Pre debate Romney 51, Obama 45.  Difference Romney +6
Post debate - Romney 52, Obama 45.  Difference Romney +7

Rassmussen -
Pre debate - Romney 49, Obama 48.  Difference Romney +1
Post debate - Romney 49, Obama 47.  Difference Romney +2
Post debate

If you think those number are realistic...I have bridge to sell you.  Gallup is an outlier and Rassmussen is GOP biased.  Most of the other polls have the race within a point or two with Obama leading in most of the battleground states.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

FYI:

One of the risks in focusing too much on the results of any one poll, like the Gallup national tracking poll, is that you may lose sight of the bigger picture.

On Thursday, that story was one of President Obama continuing to hold leads in most polls of critical states. Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them.

Mr. Obama?s chances of winning the Electoral College improved to 70.4 percent on Thursday from 65.7 percent on Wednesday, according to the forecast.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Actually math isn't hard.  What is hard is controlling the flow of information in the world we live in.

Romney's budget numbers aren't based on having 23 million people remaining unemployed, and a large number underemployed in part time jobs, or jobs that require less education/skills than they possess.

Romney's numbers are based on something that we don't have today and won't have until we stop enacting anti-business policies - an economic recovery.

Looking athttp://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/r...get-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/,Federal welfare spending in 2008 was 282.7 billion.  In 2011, it was 745.8 billion - a difference of 163.1 billion.

Welfare spending has grown since 2011, and 2008 was a recession year.  But still the same, take that $163 billion annual difference and project it over 10 years and you have 1.63 trillion.

That offsets the 1.3 trillion gap in tax revenues by $330 billion.

Of course getting the economy functioning again has more of an impact than simply reducing welfare roles, it increases tax revenues as people move from being consumers of government resources to contributors to government resources.

Face it, the debate over tax rates is a debate over the role of government in society.  As Gerald Ford once said "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything that you have."

So...Romney's budget is based upon the premise that we will have at least a normal economy and yet Obama failed because he turn the economy from the brink of collapse to being okay. 

2008 was the beginning of the recession but the effects were most felt in 2009-2011 when people began losing their jobs and then unemployment benefits.  This evident with the unemployment rate and the bulk of the foreclosures occurring in 2009 and 2010.

I find it so amusing that the GOP portrays Americans as the "greatest people in the world" but then when they get a few hundred dollars of welfare, they become lazy bums who suck off the wealth of other.  ALMOST NO ONE WANTS TO BE ON WELFARE OR FOOD STAMPS!!!!

 

[changm55]

haha 6-7 years ago i tried to get welfare... couldnt qualify cause they check the bank accounts... those gov fuckers are smart...

 

[The Motor Court Company]

haha 6-7 years ago i tried to get welfare... couldnt qualify cause they check the bank accounts... those gov fuckers are smart...

or the other way around.

 

[changm55]

haha 6-7 years ago i tried to get welfare... couldnt qualify cause they check the bank accounts... those gov fuckers are smart...

or the other way around.

well haha... i saw it more as a "tax rebate"... same thing with my unemployment i got during that time... i maxed it out cause in essence, my company paid for it by deducting from my salary to begin with... i never saw it as gov money, rather my money i put there in the first place... in fact i calculated my time at my old company and how much total they contributed vs the UI money I actually qualified for... i just about broke even with only around 1k USD loss... not bad

 

[winex]

Actually math isn't hard.  What is hard is controlling the flow of information in the world we live in.

Romney's budget numbers aren't based on having 23 million people remaining unemployed, and a large number underemployed in part time jobs, or jobs that require less education/skills than they possess.

Romney's numbers are based on something that we don't have today and won't have until we stop enacting anti-business policies - an economic recovery.

Looking athttp://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/r...get-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/,Federal welfare spending in 2008 was 282.7 billion.  In 2011, it was 745.8 billion - a difference of 163.1 billion.

Welfare spending has grown since 2011, and 2008 was a recession year.  But still the same, take that $163 billion annual difference and project it over 10 years and you have 1.63 trillion.

That offsets the 1.3 trillion gap in tax revenues by $330 billion.

Of course getting the economy functioning again has more of an impact than simply reducing welfare roles, it increases tax revenues as people move from being consumers of government resources to contributors to government resources.

Face it, the debate over tax rates is a debate over the role of government in society.  As Gerald Ford once said "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything that you have."

So...Romney's budget is based upon the premise that we will have at least a normal economy and yet Obama failed because he turn the economy from the brink of collapse to being okay. 

2008 was the beginning of the recession but the effects were most felt in 2009-2011 when people began losing their jobs and then unemployment benefits.  This evident with the unemployment rate and the bulk of the foreclosures occurring in 2009 and 2010.

I find it so amusing that the GOP portrays Americans as the "greatest people in the world" but then when they get a few hundred dollars of welfare, they become lazy bums who suck off the wealth of other.  ALMOST NO ONE WANTS TO BE ON WELFARE OR FOOD STAMPS!!!!

According to NBER, the recession started in December 2007 and ended in July 2009.  But who are they to argue with you?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

According to NBER, the recession started in December 2007 and ended in July 2009.  But who are they to argue with you?

Apparently...the effects of a recession start and end when the economist definition of recessions begin and ends.  No lag time at all...rescission starts and people lost their jobs and homes immediately.  I mean except the early 1990s recession ended in March 1991 and unemployment rate peak at 7.8 in March 1992 or the early 2000 recession ending in November 2001 and unemployment peaking in June 2003.

Also...the United States exists in a vacuum...the EU crisis and Japanese earthquake never happened.

 

[winex]

According to NBER, the recession started in December 2007 and ended in July 2009.  But who are they to argue with you?

Apparently...the effects of a recession start and end when the economist definition of recessions begin and ends.  No lag time at all...rescission starts and people lost their jobs and homes immediately.  I mean except the early 1990s recession ended in March 1991 and unemployment rate peak at 7.8 in March 1992 or the early 2000 recession ending in November 2001 and unemployment peaking in June 2003.

Also...the United States exists in a vacuum...the EU crisis and Japanese earthquake never happened.

No, apparently you are feeling a growing sense of desperation.

Looks like things are about to get even more interesting in MI and PA -http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/19/lee-iacocca-endorses-romney-for-president/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

According to NBER, the recession started in December 2007 and ended in July 2009.  But who are they to argue with you?

Apparently...the effects of a recession start and end when the economist definition of recessions begin and ends.  No lag time at all...rescission starts and people lost their jobs and homes immediately.  I mean except the early 1990s recession ended in March 1991 and unemployment rate peak at 7.8 in March 1992 or the early 2000 recession ending in November 2001 and unemployment peaking in June 2003.

Also...the United States exists in a vacuum...the EU crisis and Japanese earthquake never happened.

No, apparently you are feeling a growing sense of desperation.

Looks like things are about to get even more interesting in MI and PA -http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/19/lee-iacocca-endorses-romney-for-president/

I'm desperate?  You are heartened by the endorsement of Lee Iacocca?  Iacocca supported McCain as well.

 

[winex]

I'm desperate?  You are heartened by the endorsement of Lee Iacocca?  Iacocca supported McCain as well.

Got a link to Iacocca supporting McCain? 

He is a lifelong Democrat, but has occasionally supported a Republican here or there.  (i.e. George W. Bush in 2000, but supported Kerry in 2004)

As for why I think this is important, obviously you haven't paid close attention to recent polls.  Both Michigan and Pennsylvania are in play, and Iacocca is well respected in both places.  This endorsement could make a difference.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I found the jokes from the Memorial Dinner very interesting... you know what they say "truth in jest":
http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/pol...y-bring-on-the-jokes-at-annual-dinner_7941825

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I'm desperate?  You are heartened by the endorsement of Lee Iacocca?  Iacocca supported McCain as well.

Got a link to Iacocca supporting McCain? 

He is a lifelong Democrat, but has occasionally supported a Republican here or there.  (i.e. George W. Bush in 2000, but supported Kerry in 2004)

As for why I think this is important, obviously you haven't paid close attention to recent polls.  Both Michigan and Pennsylvania are in play, and Iacocca is well respected in both places.  This endorsement could make a difference.

RCP has Obama up by 5 in both Mich and Penn.  Obama had a post-convention bump but he's pretty much where he was a month ago in both places.  Just like in almost all of the battleground states including Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada.