He only pays an effective tax rate of 15 percent. That kind of works against his "common man" image he has been trying to sell the ditto head faction.
The Romney File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
He only pays an effective tax rate of 15 percent. That kind of works against his "common man" image he has been trying to sell the ditto head faction.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Whereas I suspect it is a combination his fear of the class warfare arguments (that will inevitably be made) and his concern over his paying 10% (or more) of has multi-million dollar income to the LDS church that has him stammering his way through questions on his taxes.
I think he was hoping to win the nomination, then release his taxes, so the ballyhoo would die down in the interstice between the primaries and the general election. Had he been smarter, he'd have released them (through 2010) in the middle of last year, but I guess he was concerned what affect that would have had on primary voters (particularly evangelicals who might not have liked the LDS donations).
In any event, he's now said he'll release last year's taxes this week.
It's not exactly as though the Obama can claim he's the "common man" either, just because he is a "mere" 7-figure millionaire and not "almost a billionaire" like Romney.
Had he been smarter he would have done a better job of thinking on his feet. Clearly quick thinking is not one of his stronger attributes. I suspect there are a few more embarrassing points in his returns other than his donations to the LDS church. They already know he is a Mormon.
I think Obama has a better claim to being a "common man" than Romney. Obama was born into a poor family and pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Romney on the other hand was born into a wealthy family and the son of a state governor. Romney was born into the plutocracy.
I think Obama has a better claim to being a "common man" than Romney. Obama was born into a poor family and pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Romney on the other hand was born into a wealthy family and the son of a state governor. Romney was born into the plutocracy.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Was he? His grandparents (whom he lived with for a good part of his childhood, as I understand it), I know, were solidly middle class, and his mother was a fairly successful academic and NGO worker, which doesn't suggest "poverty" per se. His step father was a Indonesian government employee, but started working for an oil company before Obama was in his teens, so again, not quite "poor."
I always took it that he was middle class, worse off than Mitt Romney, but far better than George Romney had it. In any event, both are millionaires now.
(Also, I am not sure why we wouldn't favor millionaires. I am not sure the down home sensibilities of the common folk are what's needed to run a country like America any more than I'd want the "common man" getting a say in engineering my local nuclear power plants. I may be a bit of a technocrat, but I prefer Presidents smart enough to succeed in their respective fields. Both Romney and Obama seem capable there. As for Romney stumbling over the tax answer, these things happen. I vividly recall when Obama (whom I voted for anyway) claimed to have visited 57 states in America and said that "the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries". We all stumble over certain issues and make dumb comments from time to time.)
Edit: And while everyone knows Romney is LDS, my guess is that people are unaware that he has likely noted tens of millions of dollars to the church. Or that that is a drop in the bucket for the LDS. Their exact wealth is kept secret, but it's immense. Romney is so rich that he'd given more money to a church flush with cash than a dozen (possibly multiple dozens) of Americans will earn in their lifetimes, and the church accounts to NO ONE for where that money goes. It doesn't even go to fund their missions, as the missionaries by and large pay their own way for those.
Last edited:
Romney is a smart guy, but it takes more than intellect to lead our country. Romney has the intellect and the knowledge. But his interpersonal skills, speaking skills, and leadership abilities are legitimately in question.
An occasional misstatement is one thing. I think those of us without an axe to grind can certainly forgive those small and ever so common human errors. However Romney's repeated bungling of the tax question is something entirely different.
The families of the missionaries usually pay for the missions. And the local stakes (churches) make it their duty to watch after the missionaries and ensure that the missionaries are well fed with home cooked meals.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The repeated bungling has taken place entirely over the past week or so. Obviously he is reticent to release his taxes, but due to political demands couldn't say that. Otherwise, his performance in the debates has been pretty good. I don't know if he has strong leadership potential, though I am not completely certain that Obama has exceptional leadership abilities either. Several examples lead me to wonder: the relatively quick dismissal of Daley as Chief of Staff, the debt ceiling debates, the persistently large percentage of Americans, possibly a majority, that want Obamacare repealed, etc. You might say that it was the Republicans who caused that trouble on most of Obama's issues, but what does "leadership" mean if one adds the caveat "unless the opposition causes trouble"? Anyone is a great "leader" when everyone is inclined to follow. The test of a leader is being able to lead despite opposition.
Romney seems to be a good enough speaker, though not on a par with Obama at his best.
It all comes down (for me) to the question of how much more debt I think the economy can take before the U.S. economy begins to disintegrate. If it can bear a great deal more debt, then Obama is a safe bet. It it can't bear a great deal more, then the preference would be for a debt cutter (which Romney may or may not be, we'd have to see) who is hopefully not a social crusader (as my views on social issues tend to be more on the libertarian side).
Of course, I am in the camp that says that we know next to nothing about how to "fix" an economy, so I am not looking to the President for that. What a President can do is ruin an economy, because things are easier to break than to fix. I don't think either Obama or Romney will take steps that are too dangerous for the economy, though the level of U.S. debt is worrisome. Nor do I think either is likely to "fix" the economy. I think the choice when it comes to fixing the economy is like choosing between witchcraft or faith healing to treat an illness. Obama is relatively more likely to purposefully try to jack the debt well above the $20 trillion level though, and that's concerning.
The Democrats will have to work to win me back, as at this point I am very unlikely to vote for Obama again (I suppose, as a start, Congress could repeal the adage "Fool me once, shame on you..."). I am not sure I'll vote for Romney either, but he's the only Republican on the table who has a realistic shot at getting my vote. Otherwise, staying home is a pretty attractive option.
I think overall leadership is a rather rare commodity in American politics these days. But be that as it may, Obama is the best we have. In his first two years he was able to get healthcare reform passed while saving the economy despite stiff Republican resistance.
I think the results speak for themselves. Instead of loosing nearly a million jobs a month, we have been consistently adding 100k - 200k jobs each and every month for the last several years. Instead of an economy shrinking at an 9% annualized rate, we have an economy that has been consistently growing at a modest 2-3 percent for the last three years.
I think Obama's fault in his first term was his belief that Republicans would ultimately play nice and put the nation before politics. Call him naive, but I think he has learned from his mistake.
As for the debt, we do have time. Our debt to GDP is about 60 - 70 percent relatively modest compared to many other countries. But we do need to get our long term debt under control as it was before George II and his merry band of Republicans took over government.
For too long, the solution to the nation's soaring healthcare costs has been to shift the cost from individuals to government rather than addressing the actual issue of cost. That cost burden will soon become unbearable for even government to bear. Our healthcare is more than twice as expensive as that in any other country and the quality of care is falling. Obamacare was a first step. Republicans have done nothing to limit or contain healthcare costs. And have done everything to protect the healthcare special interests (e.g. Medicare Part D). The very same special interests that have caused our healthcare costs to soar. The Republican solution appears to be die young and quick if you are poor or middle class.
If the US had competitive healthcare markets, we would not need Obamacare mandating improved operating efficiencies (e.g. automation). I think the US healthcare industry must be the last industry in the country to automate. When you are an oligopoly you don't have to be efficient.
I think Obama is more likely to restore fiscal sanity to the nation than a Romney administration. Obama has already taken a major swipe at cost control with healthcare reform. History has shown us that despite the rhetoric and demagoguery, Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than their Republican counterparts.
What scares me about the modern Republican Party is that they are so singularly focused, so myopic. They don't appear to be interested in reason. They appear to be more interested in heated rhetoric and the truth be damned. What is needed in Washington is fiscal responsibility not just fiscal austerity. That is much more than cutting spending. It is acting responsibly (e.g. not trying to stiff your creditors/failure to raise the debt ceiling). If you want to see Republican austerity policy in action, just look at Europe. It is not working to well for Europe. The best solution to debt is economic growth and fiscal responsibility.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
That used to be true. It's now greater than 1: 1
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
US National Debt (at the time I am posting this): @ $15,266,742,000
US GDP (at the time I am posting this): @ $15,132,618,000
and the debt is growing faster than GDP... Combine that with the U.S. personal debt load (another $15.9 trillion) and every man, woman and child in America owes, on average, $100,000.
Last edited:
No that is still true. The number you are using includes debt the government owes to itself (e.g. Social Security Trust Fund, US debt purchased and held by the Federal Reserve, etc). If government were a private enterprise the debt the government owes to itself would be a transfer and netted out. But that is not the case with fund accounting (i.e. the accounting method used by government). Historically about half the US debt is debt that the government owes to itself.
And most of Obama's spending has been related to fixing the economic crisis he inherited. He is now out of Iraq and moving out of Afghanistan. And the biggest contributor to the debt and deficit, the George II tax cuts, is slated to be terminated next year. If Republicans take power, that will not happen. Republicans are operating under the premise that reducing taxes will increase tax revenues. If that were the case, our government should be swimming is surpluses. And that is clearly not the case.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15591
Additionally, I think it a bit unfair to tag Obama with all of the Republican expenditures that have been embedded in the annual budget (e.g. the wars, Medicare Part D, and all the other unfunded Republican spending programs). The biggest thing Obama could do to reign in deficits was to pass healthcare reform. And he did, something the Clintons and no other president has been able to do.
Last edited:
Obama's mother was on food stamps. I seriously doubt Romney's family was.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Or it would do, save that much of that is "reserved" for social security and other benefit programs (in the sense that the notes are held by the SSA). So, you are right, we don't have to pay it back, in the same sense that we don't "have to" pay full social security benefits in 2020. If we are willing to bite the bullet and end entitlements, then we can certainly ignore that portion of the debt. To the extent we want to pay those entitlements, eventually someone has to put that money into the programs. By current estimates, that should amount to more than the amount of the debt held by those agencies..so in fact unless we cut back on entitlements, the debt is a low estimate of the problems we face in the next ten to thirty years.
Even netting that part out though, we're closer to 80% than 70% debt/GDP.
That would be fine too, if the rest of the world weren't drowning in debt. A crisis in one market will affect other markets, and there is no magic number at which the U.S. economy will be safe from panics. We may have many years before we hit a crisis, but we don't have multiple decades any more, and we may well have fewer than one full decade to pull out of the fiscal death spiral.
Last edited:
Those transfers are more than just Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare are pay as you go systems. So the US debt number commonly used by the press is grossly overstated. Historically, the debt number reported in the tabloid press overstates the real US debt by a 100 percent. And US debt is much lower than that of many other nations as a percent of GDP. In the past we have had much higher levels of real debt (e.g. post WWII era) when our real debt was 120 percent of GDP. We raised taxes and grew the economy. It worked. The debt level was brought down to more acceptable levels.
As far as entitlements are concerned and as I previously mentioned, healthcare costs are the biggest ongoing liability bar none for the US government. President Obama has taken a major step at controlling those costs with healthcare reform legislation. Ironically, that is one of the pieces of legislation Republicans want to reverse. Republicans have steadfastly defended those healthcare institutions responsible for the extraordinary the healthcare cost we find in the US.
We agree we in the US have long term fiscal issues. But we are not facing an immediate fiscal crisis unless we do something stupid like threaten to not pay our bills and intentionally default as the House Republicans attempted to do last year. Currently our debt service is about 6 percent of revenues - not at all bad. We have the ability to solve our long term fiscal issues.
As previously mentioned, the root of our fiscal crisis is the cost of healthcare. We pay twice as much as any other industrial nation for healthcare - almost 20 percent of GDP. We can continue to support the bloated inefficient healthcare industry or we can make them more efficient - taking away the barriers to competition which are so deeply ingrained in the state and federal law. We can no longer afford to protect the industry with cost shifting. They need to compete and earn their money the old fashioned way - through open market competition or consumer protection regulation.
Markets are certainly linked and interdependent, just as is the international banking system. The international crisis we face today is the looming liquidity crisis in the European Union. It is not the amount of debt per se of member states. The risk we face is if member states default on their debts triggering a collapse of the European and global banking systems and their customers. Because the EU does not have a strong central banking system to step in and save the day as the US Federal Reserve did in 2008, or a strong federal system of government allowing quick action in a crisis. Those are things we do have in the US. This EU liquidity crisis is largely out of the hands of US politicians, including President Obama. But Obama and his administration have been strongly pushing the Europeans in the right direction. And the Europeans are now moving towards a tighter integration and a stronger central bank. That is why the markets are up so robustly this year.
Ironically the EU moved toward fiscal contraction as a response the crisis of debt, the same policies Republicans have been advocating during the Crisis of 2008. We need look no further than Europe to see how well fiscal and monetary contraction worked than Europe, it didn't. Obama and his Democrats and Ben Bernanke took swift and decisive action to fix our economy and it worked. So to reward Republicans by restoring them to power makes absolutely no sense.
Here is my specific problem with Romney, last year Republican leadership steadfastly told business leaders and Wall Street not to worry about the debt ceiling they had it under control. Well we now know that was not the case and we narrowly missed the bullet by the skin on our teeth. If a Republican president is elected, will they be able to control the Republican mob in Congress? I don't think so. We know Boehner can't.
You are right there is no magic number that will keep US market safe from panics. US markets have never been nor ever will be safe from panics. Panic and fear is a normal part of the market place. And doing really stupid things (e.g. causing an unnecessary debt default) as Republicans have done as recently as a few months ago, doesn't instill confidence no matter what the debt level is or is not.
Last edited:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
But the solvency of those programs stated in the press includes the assumption that the US will pay in full the debt held by the SSA so that the principal and interest are there, in cash, to pay benefits.
We like to think we are not facing an immediate crisis, but the truth is that no one knows when the problem will hit. It is not impossible that in less than a year, or two, or four global debt markets could seize up as debtor nations begin to default. A year to disaster is unlikely, but four? no one can say that it isn't. Heaven forbid that China suffer a disaster large enough to set their economy back to the point where they are trying to sell their U.S. debt, because that would be an immediate crisis for us.
Assuming we are going to wait for the economy to be back where it was in the 1990's before doing anything, that's not good enough. By the time it is painfully obvious that a crisis is looming (assuming we have any significant advance warning at all) it will also be too late to fix it quickly. We cannot pay even a lower $10 trillion debt back in a single year, or even in four years. The way to avert the crisis is to demonstrate to the credit markets that we are showing fiscal responsibility before there is a crisis, not after.
That's certainly true, Romney is an unknown quantity in that regard, but we do know that Obama can't control them. Obama didn't seem to have a lot of control even when the Democrats were in control of both houses (which is when I started to doubt his ability to lead).
So we have Obama, who seemed to have no control versus a guy who may or may not have any control. So long as Romney's control > 0 (and especially given the likelihood that the GOP will gain seats this election), Romney beats Obama on that score assuming one agrees with the direction he would lead that Congress (if one dislike's Romney's proposals, then less control would be better).
Obama's strength, imo, is that his foreign policy is pretty strong. Although I'm sure the GOP candidate (which I fear will be Newt, whom I can't imagine voting for) will attack Obama on a "weak" foreign policy, other than his obviously strained relationship with Israel there's really not that much to complain about. What international problems there are arose independently of anything Obama did.
That said, foreign policy triumphs are not likely to get me motivated to vote for him so long as domestic concerns loom so large. I am not convinced that Romney will solve them either, though, so I am not sold on him, but I could be won over to his side. That said, as stated above, I don't think President's can greatly stimulate economies, I think they can mostly wreck them. The rest of the time, I think they take the credit or blame for what the economy would have done anyway. What we can do is maintain a sensible fiscal and monetary policy, which at present we are not doing.
One economic puzzle is clear, though the recession is long since over they theory that depressed economies would experience "catch-up growth" after the recession seems to have been disproven this time out. Neither we nor the Eurozone have seen any sign of it. That's a shame, as I was banking on that when Obama took office. I have no doubt he'd sail easily into his second term if Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman and the like (which was the conventional view for a long time, so not to fault them too much for backing it) had been correct about there being a robust amount of "rebound" growth to offset recession losses. In the fight between the "unit root" hypothesis and the "trend stationary" hypothesis of post-recession recoveries, unit root seems to have won this round (though the fight is far from over). If anything, the unit root hypothesis is looking overly optimistic.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I don't have a clue what you guys are worried about or arguing about. The same people back both candidates. It really makes not a dimes worth of difference if Romney or Obama wins. Neither of them is truly in control, their puppet masters and donors are the ones that will be calling the shots. . . and they have the same benefactors. Neither will disappoint their masters. They will have ostensibly the same policies.
"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."
- Amschel Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838.
What we do or not do matters.
Last edited:
Except, benefits in those programs are not commensurate with contributions. While I have paid the maximum Social Security and Medicare taxes for decades, my aunt who has never made more than minimum wage and has been drawing Social Security for 27 years; never paid in more than a 1k dollars in Social Security and Medicare taxes her entire working career; is drawing about as much money as I will draw when I become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits.
One presumes the government is committed to paying for a State Department and a military down the road too. So using that same logic, why not include those potential expenditures in the US debt numbers?
The bottom line is that the US debt number reported in the press grossly overstates the US debt as one typically understands debt, money already spent - not potential future expenditures.
Well we are not facing an immediate US debt crisis unless Republicans try to do what they did a few months ago, refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Debt in and of itself is not the problem. Countries such as The United States never need to go bankrupt because they can print money, and they can grow their revenues simply by increasing taxes and by growing the economy. Nations are also not limited/constrained by the vagaries of the human life cycle. In other words sovereign default is not possible for countries like China and the United States unless they intentionally decide to not pay their bills (e.g. recent Republican attempt in Congress). Default is possible in countries like member Euro states where member states are no longer able to manage their money supply. Additionally, markets will not lock up because of debt. They lock up because of a lack of liquidity.
One more point, China holds about 8 percent of US debt. That is not a crisis. If China decided to sell their US debt, they would be shooting a big hole in their economy. I don't think that fact is lost on the Chinese. Additionally in the unlikely event that any nation should decide to flood the debt markets with US debt, it is quite likely that under current Fed leadership, the Federal Reserve would intervene and buy those notes which would have the effect of reducing US debt levels and the interest paid by the US government.
Well the economy is much larger than it was back in the 1990's and it is growing. So why would we want to go back to the 1990's? Fortunately for us we don't need to pay back 5 trillion or 10 trillion dollars of debt - ever. Again, nations are not subject to the vagaries of the human life cycle. What we do need to do is keep our debt in line with our income. We do need to demonstrate our ability to behave rationally and be fiscally responsible in order to keep interest rates low and promote economic growth, that is true. But you don't get much lower than the current interest rate on US debt.
I don't know about that. Last year during the debt and budget talks it seems to me Obama led Democrats to make some very significant concessions.
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that Republicans will pick up more seats in the House or the Senate this year. But be that as it may, Obama last year did exert leadership over congressional Democrats. I don't think voters should reward irrational and irresponsible behavior in elected officials (e.g. reelecting Republicans). If American voters do reward such behavior, then we are all doomed anyway.
I agree Obama's foreign policy is a strength. And Republicans are not known for letting little things like truth and reason get in their way when pursuing political discourse and power.
There is nothing magical about economics. There is no magical "catch-up growth" in economics. There are no magical entitlements in economics. There is only reality.
We have just past through a tremendous potential economic disaster. It was a potential disaster of our own making. The good news is that we can fix/solve our problems. We know how. We have been their, done that before. But that means doing something different from what we did to create the crisis. Unfortunately Republicans are not offering something different. They are advocating the same old policies, deregulation, tax cuts and foreign interventions that got us into this mess. The solution to our ills is not to go back and repeat the mistakes of the past. Responsible voters should not reward irresponsible behavior with their votes. It they do, then we are all doomed.
Last edited:
oops
Last edited:
Oh really? Prove it. How have things substantially changed. . . How have things changed in an inherent way for the middle class and poor since Ronald Reagan was President? Nothing ever changes. Ever. The concentration of wealth, and the flight of jobs has continued. Policy has not changed, no matter which party is in control of the legislative or executive branches.
The government remains the same.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
I used to be a Republican. I campaigned for Reagan and even went door-to-door collecting signatures to get Ross Perot on the ballot [didn't vote for him though]. And you would have been hard-pressed to find anyone more supportive of supply-side economics. But the report card is in on the Republican's economic platform. I don't know how much more clear it could possibly be: It didn't work. But those policies have resulted in a massive national debt, and economic disaster.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
I don't see any way to create positive spin on $21 million in income, and a 13.9% tax rate, in a general election. I have to think Americans are waking up this morning, perhaps thinking about doing their own taxes, and realizing that they pay a higher tax rate than the very wealthy Mr. Romney. This goes over especially hard with an 8.5% unemployment rate and a vanishing middle class.
Also, I heard an interesting comment from an evangelical pundit, who said that problem with Romney is not that he's a Mormon, it is that he's not Mormon enough.
Also, I heard an interesting comment from an evangelical pundit, who said that problem with Romney is not that he's a Mormon, it is that he's not Mormon enough.