• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney’s Big Deception On Taxes (VIDEO)

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I wonder if VP Joe Biden will let Rep. Paul Ryan get by perpetrating this deception in their debate next week.


Mitt Romney’s Big Deception On Taxes | TPMDC



In repeatedly denying during Wednesday’s night debate that his proposed 20 percent across-the-board tax cut would cut government revenues by $5 trillion over 10 years, Mitt Romney stopped short of providing his own figure for how much the proposal would cost the Treasury.

Asked by TPM what the accurate cost of Romney’s tax rate cuts would be, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul dodged: “His tax reform proposal is revenue-neutral,” she said.

So it has gone throughout the campaign. Neither Romney nor his campaign nor his economic advisers have ever specified the cost in lost revenue of his sweeping tax cut proposal.

Instead they have insisted that he can bring down all income tax rates by 20 percent without adding to the deficit, largely by scaling back deductions and credits for high-income earners. But he and his campaign have refused to specify a single tax loophole he would target in order to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Wednesday’s debate brought into clearer focus that Romney is dodging specifics on the cost of the tax cut itself, too.​
 
What took you so long to turn to a left wing blog Pete?
 
I wonder if VP Joe Biden will let Rep. Paul Ryan get by perpetrating this deception in their debate next week.


Mitt Romney’s Big Deception On Taxes | TPMDC



In repeatedly denying during Wednesday’s night debate that his proposed 20 percent across-the-board tax cut would cut government revenues by $5 trillion over 10 years, Mitt Romney stopped short of providing his own figure for how much the proposal would cost the Treasury.

Asked by TPM what the accurate cost of Romney’s tax rate cuts would be, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul dodged: “His tax reform proposal is revenue-neutral,” she said.

So it has gone throughout the campaign. Neither Romney nor his campaign nor his economic advisers have ever specified the cost in lost revenue of his sweeping tax cut proposal.

Instead they have insisted that he can bring down all income tax rates by 20 percent without adding to the deficit, largely by scaling back deductions and credits for high-income earners. But he and his campaign have refused to specify a single tax loophole he would target in order to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Wednesday’s debate brought into clearer focus that Romney is dodging specifics on the cost of the tax cut itself, too.​

Apparently neither the author, nor you, understand what "revenue-neutral" means.
 
Apparently neither the author, nor you, understand what "revenue-neutral" means.

This is what Factcheck.org had to say:

■ Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit​


This from the ABC News website:

Sorry. That is not correct.

Obama is not accurate when he says Romney’s plan will add $5 trillion to the deficit. Romney has said his tax plan will be revenue neutral. Romney has not provided the details on how he will pay for his tax rate cut, but that does not mean the President can make the details up for him.​


Even Politifact said:

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan...​


But hey, if Talking Points Memo says it true, well.....
 
This is what Factcheck.org had to say:

■ Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit​


This from the ABC News website:

Sorry. That is not correct.

Obama is not accurate when he says Romney’s plan will add $5 trillion to the deficit. Romney has said his tax plan will be revenue neutral. Romney has not provided the details on how he will pay for his tax rate cut, but that does not mean the President can make the details up for him.​


Even Politifact said:

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan...​


But hey, if Talking Points Memo says it true, well.....

Doesn't even matter.

What matters is that whatever nincompoop wrote this article says that the Romney camp "won't say" how much tax revenue is lost, when in the immediately-previous sentence, the Romney camp said it was "revenue-neutral."

To help out the OP, "revenue-neutral" means "doesn't change revenues," i.e., NO revenues are lost. Of course, that flew right over this TPM dolt's head.

Is it actually revenue-neutral? Don't know. But when the "lie" is supposed to be that they "won't say" how much revenue is lost, it doesn't matter. They DID say. Their answer was NONE.
 
This is what Factcheck.org had to say:

■ Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit​


This from the ABC News website:

Sorry. That is not correct.

Obama is not accurate when he says Romney’s plan will add $5 trillion to the deficit. Romney has said his tax plan will be revenue neutral. Romney has not provided the details on how he will pay for his tax rate cut, but that does not mean the President can make the details up for him.​


Even Politifact said:

The president made a misleading statement about an incomplete plan...​


But hey, if Talking Points Memo says it true, well.....

Great job, Grim.
 
Romney is playing this both ways. On one hand, he wants to garner the support for cutting taxes 20% across the board. When it is pointed out that this will raise the deficit by trillions over a 10 year period, he dodges the issue by claiming some magical closure of loopholes. When confronted by the fact that closing every loophole the rich can claim still won't balance his plan, he claims you can't say that unless you know exactly what he is going to do... which he won't tell us. The term "voodoo economics" comes to mind.
 
Doesn't even matter.

What matters is that whatever nincompoop wrote this article says that the Romney camp "won't say" how much tax revenue is lost, when in the immediately-previous sentence, the Romney camp said it was "revenue-neutral."

To help out the OP, "revenue-neutral" means "doesn't change revenues," i.e., NO revenues are lost. Of course, that flew right over this TPM dolt's head.

Is it actually revenue-neutral? Don't know. But when the "lie" is supposed to be that they "won't say" how much revenue is lost, it doesn't matter. They DID say. Their answer was NONE.

How do you give a 20% across the board tax cut; eliminate the estate tax; eliminate the AMT and have it "revenue neutral?" The Romney camp has said they would do it by eliminating loopholes, but they never have said which ones.

Even Chris Wallace doesn't believe it:

 
How do you give a 20% across the board tax cut; eliminate the estate tax; eliminate the AMT and have it "revenue neutral?" The Romney camp has said they would do it by eliminating loopholes, but they never have said which ones.

Even Chris Wallace doesn't believe it:


:roll: Always the same with you; an inability to read. You quoted me:

Is it actually revenue-neutral? Don't know. But when the "lie" is supposed to be that they "won't say" how much revenue is lost, it doesn't matter. They DID say. Their answer was NONE.
 
I think Obama now uses the word "goal" meaning it's our goal to do this, I think Romney made it clear he would not raise taxes on the middle class, but instead he wanted to cut taxes for the middle class and he made it clear his tax policy would be revenue natural. And he made it clear to accomplish this he would eliminate loopholes and tax credits to give across the board tax cuts by not reducing revenue.
 
Back
Top Bottom