I want one of these: [link]

The mouseover text amuses me the most. I don't know why.

Because you are a right-thinking individual!

This may be a bit wonkish, but I've finally found some fact-checking on a claim from the first debate. In that debate, Obama claimed (as is his wont) that Romney was going to cut taxes by $5 trillion (over ten years). The fact checkers rate that as, at best, half true, as it ignores his stated intent to offset it by eliminating deductions. However, when Romney made that defence, and said that he would cover it by eliminating deductions on the wealthy, Obama retorted that the wealthy don't claim enough in deductions for their elimination to do the job.

It had the ring of truthiness, forsooth, simply because there really aren't that many rich people around. (Also the problem with Obama's deficit reduction plan.) But all the fact-checking I could find just went at the $5 trill number and ignored the deductions issue. However, I've now found one: [link] It's sourced from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Institute. Bottom line:

If you cut all taxes by 20%, then just went at eliminating all deductions and write-offs starting with the top earners and working down until you'd whacked off enough to cover the $5 trillion, then net changes would be:

• People on $1 m or more would get an average net tax cut of $87k.
• Between $500k and $1m, avg cut of $17,000.
• Between $200k and $500k, avg cut of $1,800.

So eliminating deductions can't stop people on $200k or more p.a. from being better off under Romney's plan, and by a greater amount (both absolute and as a % of income) as incomes go up. That means that, to keep Romney's tax cuts deficit neutral, he would indeed have to hit deductions for the middle class. Middle class families with kids could see a net tax increase of up to $2,000.

So now I know.

bt - unless you can out that into a 6 word description that has either alliteration in it or a rhyme, the American public cannot follow it. sorry.

Sue - THAT IS ADORABLE. OMG. I want one and a mini-pig and a red panda. I would never leaver my house and I would die from cuteness.

And then the pig would eat you. Sorry.

I like the pudu. I also like the dik-dik: [link] It seems like there are so many more creatures now than when I was a kid!

bt - unless you can out that into a 6 word description that has either alliteration in it or a rhyme, the American public cannot follow it. sorry.

Sad but true. Well, almost. I would've liked a more forceful exchange in debate 1, along these lines:

"Governor Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion and give the wealthiest Americans a massive tax break."
"That's not true, I'm also going to eliminate deductions used by the wealthy to cover it. My plan is deficit neutral."
"If you cut every single deduction claimed by everyone on more than $250 thousand, that still only adds up to $1 trillion.* Where's the rest of it coming from, Governor? Who's paying for the other $4 trillion, if not the rich?"

That's the sort of answer I would've liked to see in debate 1.

• : I don't actually know what it adds up to. But I know that it's substantially less than $5 trillion, and I figure Obama can find out the real value easily enough.

you make the baby Jesus cry.

Playmates for Homer:

Ira: >[link] Connor: >[link] Wallace: [link]

Aw, kittens! Poor Connor was found in the river, but Wallace would match better. NOT THAT I WOULD GET A SECOND CAT.

It hasn't even been that long, and already I really miss having a fully functional dominant hand.

I'm thinking the argument is that by cutting taxes, they'd create so much growth that the tax base would be increased and they would make up from the rate reductions in addition to the deduction reform.

It's the same strategy used by the Reagan administration to lower taxes fairly across the board and to reduce the deficit.