1 - 10 Next
This is old news. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/10/3091444/no-west-concession-partial-recount.html
My understanding is that the 274,713 number is simply a multiplications of the number of registered voters by the 141% number on the computer generated report. It is NOT the actual vote count.
While I certainly think there should be every effort to make sure the count is right, I am hearing that the 141% figure is part of a computer generated report, not the actual vote count. The program that generated the report most likely did not allow for the difference between ballot cards and voters -- counting each ballot card as a voter. The voters in St. Luce had 2 ballot cards. The second card was mostly amendments, so some voters may not have bothered with the second card.
You did nothing of the sort. The Tax Policy Center has Reagan people in it. They have a pretty good idea of tax policy and how it affects the economy. You're analysis assumes that reducing a 70% tax rate is the same as reducing a 30% tax rate. Or in Romney's case, a 14% tax rate. They are not the same. There is a rate of diminishing returns. You are asking me to choose between the non-partisan Tax Policy Center along with Ronald Reagan senior economic adviser Bruce Bartlett on the one hand, or you on the other. Guess what I'm going to do?
You read Bruce Bartlett's article in a whole 4 minutes and really soaked it in didn't you? You have to analyze where you are on the bell shaped curve. There is a big difference in Ronald Reagan cutting 70% tax rates and doing what Romney is proposing.
Oh excuse me Tinsldr2: I should have mentioned that I was quoting Ronald Reagan senior economic adviser Bruce Bartlett -- who knows a thing or two about the Laffer curve. Paragraphs 15 and 16 http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/exploring-mitt-romneys-taxes-and-tax-plan/
Romney would preserve provisions of the tax code most responsible for millionaires like himself paying tax rates considerably lower than those with a fraction of his income. The Tax Policy Center said that Romney’s numbers don’t add up. Either he will greatly increase the deficit or he will have to raise taxes on the middle class to maintain revenue neutrality. Even if every deduction, exclusion and credit for the wealthy was abolished, their taxes would still go down under Romney’s plan. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001628
What a bunch of clowns. The tax cuts cost $5 trillion dollars. That's all Obama said. Romney says he'll magically offset that. How? He'll let you know later. This is not serious debate.
So Willard plans to offset the $5 trillion dollars in tax cuts by eliminating "loopholes" and "deductions." In other words the tax cuts cost $5 trillion dollars as Obama says. Thanks for clearing that up Guy. I also appreciate Romney informing me that he will address the specific "loopholes" and "deductions" he will eliminate next January. Shows real "leadership."
In response to:

Romney Dominates In First Debate

Redumbapubs Wrote: Oct 04, 2012 12:09 AM
I like it when Mitt played up his universal coverage in Massachusetts. And I really like the one where he promises tax cuts but won't raise the deficit.
1 - 10 Next