Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (677181)	10/4/2012 1:31:31 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576882

Obama kept his head down at the podium and refused to make eye contact with Mitt Romney. This too is what Barack Obama did with the economy and Libya.

To: tejek who wrote (677181)	10/4/2012 1:32:11 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1576882

Poor NPR will be out of business if Romney wins.

To: tejek who wrote (677181)	10/4/2012 1:33:21 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576882

Obama has rarely been challenged and he handled it poorly last night. He was ill prepared, flustered easily, and came off as petulant. At some point we should expect the empty chair to ask Barack Obama to take a vacation day and let it debate instead.

To: tejek who wrote (677181)	10/4/2012 1:37:43 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576882

Tax Plans: it's all in the assumptions. If the economy grows, Romney's plan can work. We sure aren't growing now. Princeton Economist: The Math Behind Romney's Tax Plan Adds Up John McCormack October 4, 2012 11:48 AM At last night's presidential debate, Barack Obama said that Mitt Romney's tax plan--cutting rates by 20 percent across the board and maintaining revenue neutrality by eliminating loopholes--is mathematically impossible. "If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class," Obama said. "It's — it's math. It's arithmetic." Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can't actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not 'on the table', and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare's tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare's spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out. As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney's plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under "plausible" growth assumptions.* "[T]he TPC model assumes that regardless of the tax rate, people work the same amount, save the same amount, and invest the same amount," writes Rosen. But growth is the whole point of Romney's plan. "[A] proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same," Rosen writes. "That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral." What counts as plausible? Rosen notes that that's in the eye of the beholder, but it wouldn't be zero, as the Tax Policy Center assumes. Rosen finds that Romney's plan could work if tax reform causes the economy to grow 3 percentage points more over a given period of time than it would have grown without tax reform. Do note that Rosen is not saying* the annual GDP growth rate would be, say, 5 percent rather than 2 percent. He's saying it would be 2.29 percent, rather than 2 percent, over a 10 year period. Rosen does the math in an email to me: Say that GDP today is R. In 10 years, with a growth rate of 2 percent a year, it will be 1.219 x R. Suppose we think that GDP will be 3 percent higher in ten years if we enact the Romney plan. In this case, 10 years from now GDP will be 1.255 x R. Now the question is: starting today, what annual growth rate would lead to a GDP of 1.255 x R in 10 years. The answer is 2.29 percent. weeklystandard.com

To: tejek who wrote (677181)	10/4/2012 4:23:41 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1576882

Never Bring a Marxist to an Economic Fight Still smiling after Romney’s win last night – he wiped the floor with Obama. Good times. I felt like the adults were back in charge. Romney made Obama look downright stupid and buffoonish. Romney was focused, quick, on-target, polite and in utter control. Obama didn’t dare look at Romney, because when he did his evil, hate-filled, arrogant eyes told his story for all to see. He was lost without his teleprompter. Romney was a giant towering over a Marxist. Twitter was aflame with Romney’s win. I will be adding to this post throughout the day. A good friend called me this morning singing, “Happy Days Are Here Again!” He did not sleep a wink, he was sooo thrilled with the debate. His last quote was, “It’s over!!” Gloatfest over here. Obama kept bringing up Romney’s tax cuts for the wealthy, I say (after screaming ‘liar’), “Inconceivable!” I do not think this word means what you think it means.