Why do the Super-Rich Feel Victimized by Obama?

[Wickabee]

Random thoughts. I think it would take too long to explain in short order, but I don't see how they can be revenue neutral, at least initially. If they spark the growth that Romney and Ryan think they will, then maybe, but one man's economic growth projections are going to differ from another's. I wouldn't say they are lying or being dishonest. However, they do need to pinpoint exactly what deductions they are going to target and for whom. Also, elimination of the estate tax is very optimistic, but if that died on the floor of congress, it would make it a lot easier to have the plan be revenue neutral. Claims of raising taxes on middle class are nonsense and based on nothing more than wobbly assumptions. I saw an analysis today where it showed under ROmney's plan, the average American would pay something like a 5.7% effective rate, whereas under Obama's it was 8.1%. Bowles-Simpson was like 13%. And that was from a website criticizing the Romney plan for its vagueness. In fairness, both side's plans lack tremendous detail, but Romneys is certainly more detailed than Obama's. All you can find on Obama's plan is (a) let Bush tax cuts expire for 200 S and 250 MFJ, (b) eliminate corporate loopholes (of course, not defining which industries Obama will try to destroy with taxes (probably oil and gas) and which ones he will cater to (probably renewable energy)).

You raise some interesting points, though I would disagree Romney/Ryan has put out more details than their opponent. I would say probably about even. The difference is we already have a basic idea how Obama works (or doesn't, depending who you are) but very little idea what Romney/Ryan have in store. It's the same ol' same ol' vs the unknown. The unknown scares me more because it pretty much refuses to give anyone even a glimpse. Ryan is promising great things and, when asked how, he just glosses over it with, "It would take too long to explain."

I really wish I could find a clip of it online, but I can't. I'm just wondering if you feel okay supporting someone who has basically said, "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me," and refuse to back it up?

[AUTaxMan]

You raise some interesting points, though I would disagree Romney/Ryan has put out more details than their opponent. I would say probably about even. The difference is we already have a basic idea how Obama works (or doesn't, depending who you are) but very little idea what Romney/Ryan have in store. It's the same ol' same ol' vs the unknown. The unknown scares me more because it pretty much refuses to give anyone even a glimpse. Ryan is promising great things and, when asked how, he just glosses over it with, "It would take too long to explain."

I really wish I could find a clip of it online, but I can't. I'm just wondering if you feel okay supporting someone who has basically said, "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me," and refuse to back it up?

Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.

[Wickabee]

Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.

The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

[pghin08]

The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

Ezra Klein had a quote about this that made me chuckle: "Ryan pretends that the policy is too complicated for the country to understand, when in fact it’s too flawed for him to explain."

[mrveggieman]

[QUOTE=AUTaxMan;12104196]Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.[/QUOTE]

And what in the world would that be taxman?

[AUTaxMan]

Ezra Klein had a quote about this that made me chuckle: "Ryan pretends that the policy is too complicated for the country to understand, when in fact it’s too flawed for him to explain."

I saw that line. It's a good zinger, but it's not entirely true.

[AUTaxMan]

The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

There is no possible way you can be offended by Ryan's comments about the tax plan and not be more offended by the repeated smugness of Obama.

[Wickabee]

There is no possible way you can be offended by Ryan's comments about the tax plan and not be more offended by the repeated smugness of Obama.

So you think I should be offended by a personality flaw, but not by comments...

But really, even if he was saying the American public too stupid to understand, I don't find it offensive. It seems to be the position of the GOP that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter what you tell them.

[AUTaxMan]

So you think I should be offended by a personality flaw, but not by comments...

But really, even if he was saying the American public too stupid to understand, I don't find it offensive. It seems to be the position of the GOP that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter what you tell them.

Obama's smugness and condescension is displayed in his words routinely. Watch the debate tonight if you want some evidence.

And it seems that Obama's position on just about everything is that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter than you blatantly lie to them. My overarching point is that everything you accuse the GOP of, the Dems are just as bad if not worse, so people should make their decision on an objective basis, and not just how they feel about someone.

[Wickabee]

Obama's smugness and condescension is displayed in his words routinely. Watch the debate tonight if you want some evidence.

And it seems that Obama's position on just about everything is that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter than you blatantly lie to them. My overarching point is that everything you accuse the GOP of, the Dems are just as bad if not worse, so people should make their decision on an objective basis, and not just how they feel about someone.

If that's the case, no one should vote. They're both liars and think the American public is stupid. I just don't see the Dems being "as bad" as the GOP. The GOP has made promises about the election they couldn't even keep. At least Obama can do that, if not keep the promises he makes during the campaign.