|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
gunslinger 
Group: Members
Posts: 6041
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:24 am |
|
   |
I appears the Romney tax plan is feasible.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs....17.html
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:36 am |
|
 |
Which one. The one from Wednesday night or the one before that?
I bet you don't even know Gunslinger.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Marmotstew
Group: Members
Posts: 8757
Joined: May 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:38 am |
|
|
How come Romney didn't explain this in Denver? Because he doesn't know what the other side of his mouth is talking about?
--------------
I'd rather be Facebooking watching videos of cats licking themselves
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6041
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:42 am |
|
|
As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney's plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under "plausible" growth assumptions.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:54 am |
|
|
Weekly standard blog quoting an.... economist.
Case closed then.
Again Gunslinger, why don't you explain for us which plan of mittens they are talking about.
I won't ask you to explain how it will work.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39803
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 10:54 am |
|
|
Except, of course, that Romney himself states he'll "pay" for the tax cuts by the elimination of loopholes and deductions (to be named at some time in the future... along with the sales price of the Brooklyn Bridge I have no doubt: "priced to sell"). Which by independent analysis don't cover the tax cut shortfall.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5321
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 1:15 pm |
|
|
Obama WAS NOT lying, unless you want to quibble about the difference between $5.0 trillion (Obama's stated number) and $4.8 trillion, which is the projected loss of revenue over the next decade -- without factoring in the elimination of deductions & loopholes.
What Obama (and Clinton at the DNC, and many economists) have pointed out is that Romney has not specified which deductions will be eliminated. They also pointed out that to offset the loss of $4.8 trillion in tax cuts would require the elimination of deductions on the middle class to such an extent that the net effect would be a tax increase on the middle class.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39803
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 2:55 pm |
|
|
The lack of specificity on the deductions "loopholes" side of the arithmetic (Plus Ryan blurting out they didn't HAVE... numbers) leads me to expect this is a Reagan trap: do the easy part and cut taxes, then scramble and fuss to try and get removal of deductions and closing loopholes done (that's RAISING TAXES!!!!) and find out lo and behold: not gonna happen except over the TEA hatters and Groverites dead bodies. And quietly watch as the deficit explodes even more and the country get's it's debt rating slashed to sub-Greece levels.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8482
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 4:34 pm |
|
|
What is about right-wingers and the word "lied"?
They never used the word "lied" that way when it came to their messiah Bush.
having said that here is Brad Delong's response to this study From Feldstein and Rosen
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj....nt.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj....on.html
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8482
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 4:35 pm |
|
|
So what do the two premier fact checking organizations have to say about this?
Taxes
• Obama said that Romney's plan "calls for a $5 trillion tax cut." The figure accounts for
only half of Romney's plan, and it's cumulative over 10 years. The governor says he will
offset those lost revenues by reducing tax deductions and eliminating loopholes. However, he
hasn't specified what those changes would be. The president made a misleading statement about
an incomplete plan, but he did describe what the plan was missing and that Romney would not
fill in the gaps. We rated the claim Half True.
• Obama said that "independent studies" looking at Romney's tax plan say the only way to meet
Romney's goal of not adding to the deficit is by "burdening middle class families." A
reputable study from the Tax Policy Center found that to meet Romney's deficit goal, middle
class taxpayers might lose exemptions and deductions worth about $2,000. So we previously
have rated Mostly True a claim that Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give
millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a
year."
• Romney said six tax studies look at a study that Obama described and "say it's completely
wrong." Previously, Romney has claimed that five studies back his tax plan. We found that
Mostly False. We saw no more than two independent studies out of the five claimed.
• Obama said he "lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times." When we examined his claim
last summer that his administration had "provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses,"
we rated it Mostly True, noting that conservative tax specialists say the statistic ignores
proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o....-debate
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8482
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 4:36 pm |
|
|
$5 Trillion Tax Cut
The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The
president is off base here — Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.
Obama: Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut — on top
of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Romney: First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a
scale that you’re talking about.
To be clear, Romney has proposed cutting personal federal income tax rates across the board
by 20 percent, in addition to extending the tax cuts enacted early in the Bush administration.
He also proposes to eliminate the estate tax permanently, repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax,
and eliminate taxes on interest, capital gains and dividends for taxpayers making under
$200,000 a year in adjusted gross income.
By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower
federal tax liability by “about $480 billion in calendar year 2015” compared with current
tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure
out over 10 years, coming up with a $5 trillion figure over a decade.
However, Romney always has said he planned to offset that massive cut with equally massive
reductions in tax preferences to broaden the tax base, thus losing no revenue and not
increasing the deficit. So to that extent, the president is incorrect: Romney is not
proposing a $5 trillion reduction in taxes.
The Impossible Plan
However, Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large
loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit
disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the
estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this
year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically
possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the
wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.
Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account
for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s
promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet.
Romney: My number one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. …
I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans. … I will lower taxes on
middle-income families.
But he didn’t say how he’d pull off all those things at once.
‘Six Other Studies’
When the president referred to the Tax Policy Center’s criticisms, Romney claimed it was
contradicted by several others.
Romney: There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s
completely wrong.
That’s not quite true, as we previously reported when the count was at five. We found that
two of those “studies” were blog items by Romney backers, and none was nonpartisan.
The only one of those “studies” by someone not advising Romney was done by Harvey Rosen, a
Princeton economics professor who once served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s
Council of Economic Advisers.
Rosen concluded that Romney could pull off his tax plan without losing revenue assuming an
extra 3 percent “growth effect” to the economy resulting from Romney’s rate cuts. That’s an
extremely aggressive assumption, and in conflict with recent experience. Despite Bush’s large
tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, for example, real GDP grew by 3 percent or more for only two of
his eight years in office. The average of the year-to-year changes was just over 2 percent.
Furthermore, Bush’s cuts reduced the total tax burden on the economy because they were not
offset by base-broadening measures. In theory, at least, Romney’s revenue-neutral rate cuts
would have even less of a stimulative effect than Bush’s cuts did.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Now I have to say I though that factcheck was splitting hairs in that first part there. I
mean yes Romney didn't literally say he proposed a 5 trillion tax cut but that 5 trillion is
the result of Romney's plan of "cutting personal federal income tax rates across the board
by 20 percent" according to the non-partisan Tax policy center if you extrapolate it over 10 years
of course Romney has no real plan to pay for it despite Romney's claim that he does
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39803
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 08 2012, 5:11 pm |
|
|
Funny how Romney was just slamming "hope" as he sees it in foreign policy (though flooding a region such as the Mideast with advanced arms doesn't seem all that bright to me, but that's what he's promising to do...) when that's all he's offered on tax policy: which as an economic issue is central to the election.
I mean has he checked with his new buddy Bibi on that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
