Gillespie Called Out By Wallace For Romney's Impossible Tax Math, Lack of Details

Mycroft said:

Let's be honest, eh? As a liberal, you don't care about his vision. You are only looking for ways to attack him. Your preferred method is nitpicking. Heck, it's the preferred method of EVERYONE on the Obama side.

So...you expect Romney to respond to your nitpicking while you avoid any nitpicking on Obama.

Here is the Obama plan:



In the interest of avoiding being two-faced, I'd like you...or anyone...explain the math behind this crap. Especially the "double exports and create one million new manufacturing jobs" promise.

Click to expand...

You be mistaken, as someone who voted for Bob Dole, I only lean liberal. I vote independent. Convince me, and I'll vote for you.

As for explaining his math, it doesn't work either. And I hope moderators will call him on this and Romney on his. You'll notice I haven't gone on any thread saying Obama's math adds up or defending him on this. I'm only here because you and others are excusing Romney.

However, I don't believe presidents control the economy.

Porchev said:

It is obvious that the people with extreme math problems is the Obama administration and their friends in Congress, because they are spending a trillion dollars too much every year and they don't care about that, but someone comes along that wants to get us back on track and they have the nerve question him on math?

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that would include both parties. Both spend without trying to pay for it.

Boo Radley said:

Perhaps, but that would include both parties. Both spend without trying to pay for it.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course, both parties have spent too much at times, however, the current administration has increased it so much and kept it there for so long that it has caught the attention of the whole world and many voters now care about it. In the past the yearly deficient spending was small in comparison to what it is today.

Porchev said:

The rates were brought down throughout his Presidency and caused amazing economic growth for several years.

Click to expand...

The strides in growth and employment were made while tax burdens were safely north of current figures. The only tax rates that were in the same zip code as today's rates put into place in 1987 and can't be credited with much of anything as far as economic health goes. His predecessor eventually had to correct that mistake.

Hare said:

The strides in growth and employment were made while tax burdens were safely north of current figures. The only tax rates that were in the same zip code as today's rates put into place in 1987 and can't be credited with much of anything as far as economic health goes. His predecessor eventually had to correct that mistake.

Click to expand...

George H. W. Bush made a fatal error to his career by increasing taxes. There was no need for it. Reagan cut taxes across the board; the top marginal income-tax rate was cut from 70 percent to 28 percent. It was better he went in phases to get there, but every reduction did help. And we would be much better off to go back to what they were at the end of his Presidency.

"...In 1983, the final year that the [initial] Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989, and another 10 million since then. At a rate of 3.5%, the gross national product increased by a third during the rest of Reagan's term..."

How Reagan reelected Clinton - Forbes.com

Boo Radley said:

No, he actually hasn't. He's suggested something that has math issues. As the math doesn't work, we need some kind of explanation, how he sees it working. That clarification would help voters decide whether or not they agree that it is workable. it's not nitpicking. It's trying to understand his vision.

Click to expand...

And if Romney/Ryan give the details of the tax cut plan, liberals will complain about the specifics.

A long held partial myth cherished by the worshippers of St Ronnie

Reagan cut taxes across the board; the top marginal income-tax rate was cut from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Click to expand...

In 1981, Reagan cut taxes but over the next 7 years he raised taxes several times with the greatest impact on lower-income workers who ended up paying more on payroll taxes, those that fund Social Security by increasing from the rate from 3.5% to 7% of their paycheque

After cutting capital gains taxes to 20%, Reagan and Congress raised the rate to 28%. By the end of his time in office, Reagan had signed tax increases that took back about half of the cuts he promoted in 1981

Porchev said:

George H. W. Bush made a fatal error to his career by increasing taxes. There was no need for it.

And we would be much better off to go back to what they were at the end of his Presidency.

"...In 1983, the final year that the [initial] Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth.

Click to expand...

The Bush sr. tax hikes were absolutely minimal in nature and did nothing to address the deficit or rising unemployment. Nonetheless they were the cause of his political demise, not the cause of any substantial economic impact.

Wish granted. As mentioned earlier, todays rates are lower than at any time period in decades.

Notice the 15 years figure? Not only is it erroneously counting Bush Sr.'s term as an unimpeded period of growth, it includes the near entirety of Clinton's term, tax hikes and all. What gives?

Boo Radley said:

You be mistaken, as someone who voted for Bob Dole, I only lean liberal. I vote independent. Convince me, and I'll vote for you.

As for explaining his math, it doesn't work either. And I hope moderators will call him on this and Romney on his. You'll notice I haven't gone on any thread saying Obama's math adds up or defending him on this. I'm only here because you and others are excusing Romney.

However, I don't believe presidents control the economy.

Click to expand...

Then you won't be voting for either man. Neither will give details, as you demand only of Romney...and rightly so...because that's not their jobs.

Now...if you truly don't believe President control the economy, then there is no way you can vote for Obama because his fundamental core beliefs are that he and Congress DO control the economy...yet he won't take responsibility for being unable to control the economy.

btw, I haven't made one excuse for Romney. My whole focus in this thread has been the liberal's tactics of attacking Romney about...and lying about...details, while giving Obama a pass.

Porchev said:

George H. W. Bush made a fatal error to his career by increasing taxes. There was no need for it. Reagan cut taxes across the board; the top marginal income-tax rate was cut from 70 percent to 28 percent. It was better he went in phases to get there, but every reduction did help. And we would be much better off to go back to what they were at the end of his Presidency.

"...In 1983, the final year that the [initial] Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989, and another 10 million since then. At a rate of 3.5%, the gross national product increased by a third during the rest of Reagan's term..."

How Reagan reelected Clinton - Forbes.com

Click to expand...

While I agree with you about the beneficial effects of tax cuts, I disagree with you as to the "fatal error" of George H.W. Bush's career. It wasn't increasing taxes...it was believing Democrats when they said they would cut spending if he went along with raising taxes. If they had done what they promised, those tax increases would have been palatable. They didn't. They just increased spending.

johnny_rebson said:

And if Romney/Ryan give the details of the tax cut plan, liberals will complain about the specifics.

Click to expand...

Brilliant. In an election the republicans won't tell the people what they will actually do with taxes, deficit etc. because their opponents will "complain".

No wonder romney is still in the race. His supporters don't know nor want to the details because they can't take the democrats complaining (most would say criticizing since a complaint implies implementation).

what a wonderful way to run a campaign. I could tell you how I'm going to do x but I wont because the opposition might point out how full of crap I am.

The snake oil salesman has certainly sold a lot of it to his supporters.

Mycroft said:

I found Mr. Gillespie's responses to be quite reasonable and acceptable.

Click to expand...

That is pretty telling about your ability to rationally judge others responses.

Romney's studies are wrong. Now all i need are seven people to like this and I will have seven studies confirming romney's studies are wrong.

tererun said:

Romney's studies are wrong. Now all i need are seven people to like this and I will have seven studies confirming romney's studies are wrong.

Click to expand...

except they are not "studies" they are blogs and op eds. Generally speaking a study is an indepth analysis, not a political hack endorsement.

tererun said:

That is pretty telling about your ability to rationally judge others responses.

Click to expand...

And your post is quite telling about your preference for irrelevant personal attacks.

IMO, if Governor Romney wants to address the concerns about his tax plan's deficit impact without going into specifics, he should do the following:

1. State what he would like to do (cut income tax rates 20%, reduce tax expenditures (deductions, exemptions, etc.), permanently index the AMT to inflation, and eliminate the Estate Tax.

2. State that he understands people's concerns about the deficit and, to offer an additional level of assurance, he would examine the deficit impact of each component of his tax reform plan on a case-by-case basis before proceeding. That approach would work as follows:

a. The income tax rates would be reduced and funded by reduced tax expenditures (there are ample tax expenditures to do this--albeit some of the largest ones are popular).

b. If there's enough money, the AMT would be indexed. If not, it might be partially indexed to the extent funds are available or the AMT plan would be dropped altogether. Permanently slowing the inflation impact is still better than doing nothing on that front.

c. If there's enough money, the Estate Tax would be eliminated. If not, it won't.

6. He could then take the Republican position that he's confident that he will be able to accomplish those reforms, but declare that has decided to offer additional assurances that the principle that he won't let the tax policy changes raise the deficit he introduced during the first debate is credible and would take precedence.

Offering these contingencies would perhaps peel off a little GOP support, but it could open the door to much broader support by independent voters and those who place high priority on reducing the nation's budget deficits. Those who are better informed on fiscal issues also recognize that it might not be possible to permanently fix the AMT in the context of the nation's long-term fiscal challenges and they won't be adversely swayed on account of a dose of political realism.

Finally, promising not to proceed (or partially proceed) would help him more than promising to find or develop additional offsetting revenue streams. The latter would open him up to opposition attacks that he is, in fact, planning to raise taxes on the Middle Class.

Mycroft said:

Then you won't be voting for either man. Neither will give details, as you demand only of Romney...and rightly so...because that's not their jobs.

Now...if you truly don't believe President control the economy, then there is no way you can vote for Obama because his fundamental core beliefs are that he and Congress DO control the economy...yet he won't take responsibility for being unable to control the economy.

btw, I haven't made one excuse for Romney. My whole focus in this thread has been the liberal's tactics of attacking Romney about...and lying about...details, while giving Obama a pass.

Click to expand...

NO, I will be voting for Romney. I see Romney as Obama light. There is little difference, and what difference I can see is that Romney is more willing to bend to get elected. That's not a positive for me.

The point here is that it is fair to ask for details of both of them, question their assertions, and not blame others because they won't answer. And while there are plenty of lies going around on both sides, it is not a lie that Romney lacks any details, and largely there is no math that works in what little he has said.