While I appreciate Scot's effort to be the arbiter of "truth" on these issues, in the end, perception is reality.  And all of Scot's favorite "fact checkers" have a long history of declaring their perception (opinion, actually) to be the final truth.  But the "pants on fire" or 5 pinnchio noses makes for good copy.  But they all have a liberal agenda.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  So in the debates, the winner will be the one who is best able to convincingly APPEAR correct.  We all know the Obama talking points that will come out-that the recession was caused by the Bush, for instance.  Hopefully Romney will have a strong rebuttal-that it was caused to a much greater degree by the government's catering to Fannie and Freddie, and by the Democrat's opposition to efforts to rein them in.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  One truth that Scot cannot change is the state of our economy nearly 4 years since Obama took office.  It is slogging through growth in the 1-2% range, despite Obama having a rubber stamp congress for the first two years.  Try putting some lipstick on that pig.

NEW PARAGRAPH:  Lastly, I truly hope that the President uses the stats displayed by Scot to justify the deficit.  No serious thinker could buy that, and it would make Obama look very desperate.  Romney simply needs to show how much Obama has spent, he signed the stimulus and then raised the baseline budgets across the board.   In the nearly dead Obama economy, revenue growth has been nonexistant.  That IS the cause of the deficit, and Romney needs to hammer that home.

I suppose one could beat to death the shading by all politicians, but this election is truly coming down to more than just fact checkers.  This election for the Presidency is more than just which man sits in the White House.  If one looks at the electoral map one is simply overwhelmed at the way the nation is split and split so oddly.  Blue states which create most of the nations wealth in finance and industry are trending toward Obama.  Red states with generally lower income levels and more poverty are trending towards Romney.  Looking at it one has to wonder what gives?  What gives is this election has been really turned into a question of what kind of country do we want and I wonder sometimes if some of these folks really understand what they are asking for.  That of course is a question I cannot answer.

What I can say though is that this election will to some degree decide if we will remain a nation that cares about all of its people.  Forget Romney, the Republican Party of today envisions a society in which each person is on their own with no assist from government.  The elderly, the veteran, the disabled, the poor, the purely incapable of winning simply lose.  I will vote for Obama not because he is perfect but because he will protect those that I have mentioned above.   All the zingers, all the fact checkers in the world does not change the fact that there are a number of Americans who just don't care.  Will soldiers such as myself be willing to serve a nation that merely abandons them after the war is over.  Jobs bills denied, benefits reduced.  I doubt it.  Will young people show loyalty and work hard for companies that merely use them and discard them. I don't think so.

I think in the end if Romney is forced to express his real vidion of America, America will reject it.  America will reject this libertarian nonense, this childish vision of a world long past.  I think and I hope in the end the American people will choose to move forward with all of modern progresses hitches and failures.  It is surely better to move forward than to dream of the past.

Should be interesting, since you never know which side of an issue Romney is going to take on any given day.  It's kind of weird and alarming to see a guy running for the presidency who has been so utterly hollowed out by the bile of his own ambition.

"System," do you ever have an original, non-repetitive thought?

I buy all your arguments except welfare.

Scot, did you see the new video of Obama from '07 in New Orleans? Lends more credence to them trying to pay off Wright.

Im still waiting for a Democrat solution to our budget problems.  Scot's buddies the fact checkers called the Presidents 4 trillion dollar plan as joke.  Scot will attack and speculate about the Republican plan, and thats fine, but admit its the only one on the table.  The Democrats are cowards unwilling to admit they need higher taxes on the middle class to continue with their entitlement society.  And Scot will continue to carry their water.

Charlie, That's really not true. I would Obama overstates his savings. There, to some degree, the question is, does he get credit for cuts already made? Romney/Ryan have an assertion of a plan, but not a plan itself. There is a difference there that can be summed up in one word: How? We don't have the how from Mitt. Not on how he will get spending to 20 percent of GDP (particularly while hiking military spending). Not on how much the Medicare vouchers will be worth. Not on the rate at which they will grow year by year (unless it matches the rate of medical inflation or somehow brings medical inflation down to its rate of increase, the effect is to shift costs). Nor do we know which loopholes and deductions he would close to pay for his big new tax cuts. Honestly, I doubt Mitt knows either. My suspicion is that these are assertions of do-ability with no plan at all behind them. Scot

Excuse me, that should be, I would agree that ...

Scot, most of his plan is 1 trillion already agreed upon, 1.5 trillion counted as the wars ending, and 800 billion as savings on the national debt by the decreased spending already mentioned.  Thats according to fact check.org who i think accurately ripped both candidates on their budget woes.  But shouldnt Mitt get credit for all these same "cuts" that the president is taking in his 5 trillion dollar plan? The President made no cuts whatsoever.  Nor did he offer any plan on entitlement restructuring.  He isnt talking about fixing the tax code, just taxing the wea, which wont fix our problems.  He, like you, is simply attacking the plan on the table.   And again,  their outline if you like does have some issues. But its a start. Its insane to think military spending shouldnt go down but at least lets have a serious talk about cutting spending before we raise taxes as the Democrats first answer to every problem seems to be.  God forbid they do their job and say no to some entitlement group. 

Scot, since you are one of the few pundits that interacts with his bloggers, can you explain how a 20% tax cut offset by the elimination of popular credits like mortgage and charitable donation deductions is a net plus for anyone? It seems like one hand gives and the other takes away. I don't understand how this benefits the greater good. Tax cuts that are revenue neutral don't seem to move the ball off the 50 yard line in either direction. Since this is Romney/Ryan's plan, the cynic in me sees the middle class/working poor getting screwed again. Is it another republican shell game like the prescription drug benefit (not funded with the big donut hole that backstopped the drug companies)? Any thoughts?

Scot, since you are one of the few pundits that interacts with his bloggers, can you explain how a 20% tax cut offset by the elimination of popular credits like mortgage and charitable donation deductions is a net plus for anyone? It seems like one hand gives and the other takes away. I don't understand how this benefits the greater good. Tax cuts that are revenue neutral don't seem to move the ball off the 50 yard line in either direction. Since this is Romney/Ryan's plan, the cynic in me sees the middle class/working poor getting screwed again. Is it another republican shell game like the prescription drug benefit (not funded with the big donut hole that backstopped the drug companies)? Any thoughts?

Scot, my earlier post specifically attributed

Much of the deficit to the lack of tax revenues in this weak economy. Obama did raise spending, but his policies have not grown the economy. Thus, he is responsible on both the spending and the revenue sides of the ledger.

It seems beyond all of the rhetoric the fundamental issue remains the same.  Mr. Romney proposes a tax reduction without explaining how he would pay for it.  Second in order to vote for Mr. Romney one has to believe that these cuts for the wealthy will somehow jump start the economy at a faster rate than it is already recovering.  Housing prices have increased the fastest they have in six years.  The economy is certainly better than when President Obama came into office.  So the question becomes how does Mr. Romney's proposed tax cuts improve the situation for the middle class?  He would hold that it will trickle down through better investment.  A position not supported by history.  However, as I have stated and will continue to state is the idea that this government will be handed over to the regressive southern majority of the Republican Party to the detriment of the very nature of this nation is frightening.  

"HHK" held that the odd formation of the electoral map is due to a great extent to the religious sensibilities of many of the voters and I agree.  It is obvious the electoral breakdown has a great deal to do with religious and racial feelings.  I'm not saying racist but purely racial and purely religious.  Living here in the South is wonderful for the weather but depressing in terms of the value system.  While politiicians and citizens proclaim their religious leanings their actions in terms of their fellow citizens clash with those values.

"HHK"  I find it odd that you haven't noticed there have been negative articles and opinions regarding both Obama and Warren.  I understand "system" filtering the new he can't help himself.  I find it a little odd on your part.   

It 4 trillion versu 5 trillion--how is the President paying for his?  Oh wait, his is fake so its different. 

Anyone else notice this site is always broken?  Everyother other one seems to run without a hitch but comments here are always down. 

DBallantyen:

That's a good question. I think the policy idea that informs it is that a tax code is less cumbersome and simpler -- and thus more economically efficient -- with lower rates and a broader base. There are several problems there, however. One, obviously, is that Mitt hasn't given us much if any idea how he would offset it. Second, a tax code with lower rates and fewer deductions would probably be less progressive, though progressivity is not a value everyone cares about.

To some degree, I think what happened here is that he felt he really needed a bigger, pro-growth tax cut proposal in the primaries, so he came up with this one. Back then, his idea was that he could run a no-details campaign and win because the election would be a referendum on Obama. Then two things happened: 1) The Tax Policy Center stepped in with a detailed analysis that showed that what he proposed was really impossible unless he changed the tax treatment of unearned income, which won't do; and 2) It became obvious that this was a choice campaign, not just a yes or no on the incumbent. So now he's trying to at least give the impression that he has credible details.

Scot

Charlieboy:

No, actaully it's not $5 trillion versus $4 trillion. The $5 trillion is for a NEW tax cut Romney is proposing. He has no plan on how to pay for it. Atop that, there's the existing debt/deficit, which he says he would reduce all on the spending side, but again, without any specifics as to how.  So let's just say we're talking about getting it to a managable percentage of GDP, a la Simpson-Bowles: Romney is currently about $9 trillion -- 5 for the new tax cuts, plus 4 to get the deficit down -- to the bad.

Now to Obama: He's not proposing a big new income tax cut, so there's no additional $5 trillion to pay for. As to the existing deficit, he would let the Bush tax cuts for upper earners expire, which is $850 B to $1 trillion over 10 years (all these figures are over 10 years, by the way). That means, even if you discount his other cuts, he's only (only!) got a $3 trillion problem ovr 10 years, compared to $9 trillion for Romney.

Scot

Scot---I knew you could look at Obamas numbers and realize they are nonsense!  Good work.  Romneys numbers, like the presidents dont add up.  Just wanted you to go after both sides equally. 

Charlieboy: You are ignoring most of what I said ...

No im not.  Fact check correctly ripped both candidates.  You, as usual, only pointed out what was said about Romneys plan.  I agree his 500 billion a year tax cut plan is ambitious to say the least.  And as we both know, it wont happen.  He does think that cutting taxes  will increase the income we take in.  Im guessing he will go heavy after entitlement reform as well like he and ryan are saying.  This will have the effect of major spending cuts.  The President however, has no plan.  Let the train continue on with events to play out as they would whether he is there or not.  So I correctly stated he has no plan for anything but is attacking the overly ambitious plan put forward by Romney.  Democrats spend at the tax rates they want for the middle class and figure at some point we will just have no choice.   I understand that Romneys present plan wont happen the way it is and you dont believe that lowering taxes increases net revenue anyway.  Thats fine and a legitimate, debatable arguement.  But also understand that the President is offering nothing.  He is too cowardly to even put a solution on the table or admit what he thinks needs to happen to middle class taxes.

The numbers for Mitt are pretty much set in stone.  I'm not even sure why there is a big debate about it.  A 20% tax cut across the board increases the deficit unless you reach for one of these nonsense imaginary boosts in govt. revenues based upon an increase in GDP due to the tax cuts.  However, we don't see that.  So let us assume Mitt is sane and wishes to pay for it by closing the "loop holes" he says he wishes to cut.  The only way he gets to the number is by eliminating the deductions available.  There are not enough deductions available at the upper income levels if they are all closed.  So now we move to the middle class, mortgage deduction, state local tax deduction, charitable deduction etc.  these do in fact close the gap but the 20% reduction will still leave the middle class holding the bag.  There just isn't any way around that.

Obama's proposals also fail to cover the budget deficit.  Rapid growth in GDP lowers it some degree, increases in the upper level income tax rate reduces it some more.  However, without major changes to entitlements and defense, defense which everyone likes to skip, you can't get there from here. 

Given that neither candidate really makes an attempt at balancing the budget it may say that no one is looking to balance, but merely to reduce it.  Get it down to a reasonable portion of GDP hoping that as GDP rises the debt in relation to GDP declines and everyone gets to say, "What a good boy am I."  The fact however is that neither candidate neither party really is that concerned about the deficit as both know a deal has to be and will be cut before we jump the shark.

The question then becomes who do you trust to revamp the tax code and revamp entitlements. I for one don't trust the Republicans, forget Romeny, I don't trust the Party.

Charlie:

Just to review the bidding: Romney's hole, at about $9 trillion, is three times as large. He doesn't have an overly ambitious plan. He has a set of assertions. Obama has some plausible proposals in service of the smaller hole he would need to close.

Scot

Scot his are not proposals, its whats going to happen regardless of who is in office over the next ten years.  He proposes nothing.