Romney blows it during debate

[GG]

Bill Maher Rips Obama's Debate Performance: 'Looked Like He Took My Million And Spent It All On Weed'

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-rips-obamas-debate-performance-looked-like-he-took-my-million-and-spent-it-all-on-weed/

[nathanm]

It's OK, Romney spent all of Sheldon Adelson's money on speed.

[Red Arrow]

It's OK, Romney spent all of Sheldon Adelson's money on speed.

Wow, speed rhymes with weed.

[Conan71]

Better to let them run themselves out of business if they're that out of touch with reality. It will make room in the market for those who do have a grasp on reality.

Ahhh, maybe some guys like you and Sheen can start your own companies and learn the realities of actually owning and running a business!   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sounds like a genetically modified business opportunity...speedweed...

[Cats Cats Cats]

Nobody said their feelings are hurt. You obviously don't understand the concept of a hostile business or regulatory environment in the mind of a small business owner. 

My company, like many others in the energy and construction segments, is quite busy right now and we are more than taking care of demand of our customers.  They simply wait longer for projects to be finished these days.  The owner won't hire anyone else until after the November election and we aren't doing any major capital spending right now in case the economy falls back off a cliff or if the tax situation changes.

Start a company and employ 25 to 50 people then I think you will get it.

Your wording "don't respond well to rhetoric telling them they don't contribute enough" makes me think emotional response.  Instead of, they will have to pay more in taxes.  If your customers need their job done faster they will have to go elsewhere. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

As far as the home mortgage interest deduction, due to the high exemptions and personal deductions, the mortgage interest deduction is pretty much worthless to folks in the lower to mid middle class.  I did the calcs a few years ago and I believe at the time if you had financed anything less than $115K or so, there was little benefit to the mortgage deduction unless you had a crap ton of medical expenses to go with it.

When I was younger I kept hearing about the mortage interest deduction and storie of people buying bigger houses so they could take the deduction.  I think I got enough deductions to itemize a few years and then only beat the standard deduction by like $1000.  At that point I wasn't paying a huge amount of deductible state taxes.  I still don't understand why anybody in their right mind thinks its a good idea to spend money on interest to get 0-35% of it back.

[nathanm]

When I was younger I kept hearing about the mortage interest deduction and storie of people buying bigger houses so they could take the deduction.  I think I got enough deductions to itemize a few years and then only beat the standard deduction by like $1000.  At that point I wasn't paying a huge amount of deductible state taxes.  I still don't understand why anybody in their right mind thinks its a good idea to spend money on interest to get 0-35% of it back.

You spend money on interest because you want a house. That's made easier because some or all of the interest is tax free. If you don't want to own a house (and I wouldn't blame you), the existence of the mortgage interest deduction should have no bearing on your decision.

[Conan71]

When I was younger I kept hearing about the mortage interest deduction and storie of people buying bigger houses so they could take the deduction.  I think I got enough deductions to itemize a few years and then only beat the standard deduction by like $1000.  At that point I wasn't paying a huge amount of deductible state taxes.  I still don't understand why anybody in their right mind thinks its a good idea to spend money on interest to get 0-35% of it back.

Some people view the mortgage interest deduction as the only reason to buy a house.  Some look at a house as a long-term investment while yet others say a house is a terrible investment or a piss poor savings plan at best.

Where I'm at in life right now, I don't care to own a house that would give me a big enough interest deduction to bother with itemizing.  I view home ownership and building equity for myself as a preferable alternative to building equity for someone else's property as a renter.  I also like having the freedom to make improvements as I see fit.  Sure, I'm also responsible for repairs, but I'm also responsible on repairs for everything else I own.

[Red Arrow]

That's made easier because some or all of the interest is tax free.

Just to clarify, I believe the interest is a deduction from your income which will reduce your tax based on your marginal tax bracket.  It is not a direct reduction of your tax.  I don't know about the modern funny money mortgages but the old fashioned (almost) interest on the unpaid balance type also result in a declining deduction as you pay off the mortgage.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Yup, just reduces taxable income so it comes off the top end of your marginal tax rate.  There isn't an "all of" your interest being free.

[nathanm]

Just to clarify, I believe the interest is a deduction from your income which will reduce your tax based on your marginal tax bracket.

Indeed. You don't pay (federal income) tax on the income used to pay the interest on the mortgage. It is not a tax credit, but a deduction from income.

Either way, it doesn't seem like a wise idea to pull $70 billion a year out of the economy at the present time. If the deduction were eliminated and federal spending (preferably on infrastructure and research) increased commensurately until the economy stops requiring the extra juice, it might end up being a good thing in the long run. Short term, it's a bucking disaster, because it will further increase the length of the period of deleveraging we are currently inhabiting.

[Gaspar]

Now this is funny. . .

The Princeton Economist Harvey Rosen, the author of the "Study" that President Obama kept pointing to in the debate concerning Romney's Tax plan is now upset that President Obama completely misinterpreted his study.

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that  under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.  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.

Just like when they were pushing Obamacare it was necessary for them to double-dip on the numbers to make it work.  Now they are double-dipping to defend it!

[guido911]

Now this is funny. . .

The Princeton Economist Harvey Rosen, the author of the "Study" that President Obama kept pointing to in the debate concerning Romney's Tax plan is now upset that President Obama completely misinterpreted his study.

I can't tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work.  It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal.  The main conclusion of my study is that  under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same.  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.

Just like when they were pushing Obamacare it was necessary for them to double-dip on the numbers to make it work.  Now they are double-dipping to defend it!

Apparently this guy has not gotten the message that Romney is lying. I will give him a call tomorrow.

[nathanm]

You're mistaken once again, Gaspar. Rosen was responding to comments made by the campaign after the debate. During the debate, Obama was referencing TPC's numbers, which he stated several times. Maybe lay off whatever it is that's messing up your memory?

Also:

Rosen's paper did find that families making more than $100,000 per year would have to pay $81 billion more in taxes under Romney's tax plan, a 12 percent increase.

What a misrepresentation that is!